Is 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 More

What 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 More