How does the material or article worked upon affect apparatus claims?
The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115: “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young. The MPEP…
Read MoreHow does In re Young affect patent claim interpretation?
In re Young is another important case cited in MPEP 2115 that affects patent claim interpretation, particularly for apparatus claims. The MPEP states: In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of In re Otto in patent law?
In re Otto is a significant case in patent law, particularly for apparatus claims. According to MPEP 2115, the case established that: “[I]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) The…
Read MoreHow does In re Casey relate to material worked upon in patent claims?
In re Casey is another significant case discussed in MPEP 2115 that relates to material worked upon in patent claims. The MPEP summarizes the case as follows: In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said…
Read More