How does the size of a genus affect anticipation in patent law?
The size of a genus can significantly affect anticipation in patent law. Generally, a smaller, more limited genus is more likely to anticipate a species within it than a large or undefined genus. The MPEP notes: “[H]ow one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative size of a genus or species in…
Read MoreCan extrinsic evidence expand the meaning of terms in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
No, extrinsic evidence cannot expand the meaning of terms in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. According to MPEP 2131.01: “Extrinsic evidence may be used to explain but not expand the meaning of terms and phrases used in the reference relied upon as anticipatory of the claimed subject matter.” This principle is illustrated in the case…
Read MoreHow can extrinsic evidence be used to support a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
Extrinsic evidence can be used to support a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2131.01: To prove that a primary reference contains an “enabled disclosure.” To explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference. To show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. The…
Read MoreCan an examiner reject claims based on a non-enabling prior art reference?
Yes, an examiner can reject claims based on a prior art reference without first determining if the reference is enabling. This practice was affirmed in the case of In re Antor Media Corp., as cited in MPEP 2121: “[D]uring patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication…
Read MoreIs exact wording required for anticipation?
Exact wording, or “ipsissimis verbis,” is not required for anticipation. The MPEP 2131 clarifies: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. (In re Bond) This means that while the prior art must disclose all elements of the…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for enablement in prior art references?
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121: “The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It…
Read MoreWhat is an “enabled disclosure” in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections?
An “enabled disclosure” in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections refers to a prior art reference that not only discloses the claimed invention but also provides sufficient information to enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2131.01, when a primary reference identically…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between using prior art for 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections?
The use of prior art differs for 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) and 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness) rejections. For 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, the MPEP Section 2121.01 indicates that the reference must contain an enabling disclosure: “The disclosure in an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter; mere naming or…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections?
The key difference between rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 lies in how the prior art is applied: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Anticipation): The claim is anticipated by the reference. As stated in the MPEP, “for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either…
Read MoreWhat level of detail is required for a prior art reference to be considered enabling?
For a prior art reference to be considered enabling, it must provide sufficient detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. The MPEP 2121 states: “A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention…
Read More