What is the presumption regarding the adequacy of a description as filed in a patent application?
In patent law, there is a presumption that the description as filed in a patent application is adequate. This presumption remains in effect unless the examiner presents sufficient evidence or reasoning to rebut it. According to MPEP 2163.04: “A description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s burden of proof for means-plus-function limitations?
According to MPEP 2182, when applying prior art to a means-plus-function limitation, the examiner has specific burdens of proof: The examiner must show that the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim. If the prior art only teaches identity of function, the examiner carries the initial burden of proof for showing…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a product can be made by a materially different process?
How does the USPTO determine if a product can be made by a materially different process? The USPTO determines if a product can be made by a materially different process by considering alternative methods of production that result in the same end product but differ significantly in their approach. According to MPEP 806.05(f): “The burden…
Read MoreWhat happens if an applicant traverses a restriction requirement between a process and a product?
If an applicant convincingly traverses a restriction requirement between a process and a product, the burden shifts to the examiner. According to MPEP 806.05(f): “If applicant convincingly traverses the requirement, the burden shifts to the examiner to document a viable alternative process or product, or withdraw the requirement.” This means that if the applicant provides…
Read MoreWhat is the examiner’s burden of proof for subcombinations usable together?
The examiner’s burden of proof for subcombinations usable together is outlined in MPEP 806.05(d): “The burden is on the examiner to provide an example to support the determination that the inventions are distinct, but the example need not be documented.” This means that the examiner must: Provide an example showing how the subcombinations are distinct…
Read More