What are the typical circumstances where adequate written description issues arise in patent applications?

The MPEP 2163.03 outlines three typical circumstances where adequate written description issues arise: Original claims: When the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. New or amended claims: When the claims are not supported…

Read More

Can an original claim lack written description support?

Yes, an original claim can lack written description support. According to MPEP 2163.03: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides…

Read More

How does MPEP 2114 differentiate between apparatus claims and method claims?

MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states: “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” This means that for…

Read More

How does functional language in original claims affect written description requirements?

Functional language in original claims can lead to written description issues if not properly supported by the specification. According to MPEP 2163.03: “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.” This means that when claims use functional language to define the invention, the specification must…

Read More

What is the relationship between functional language and 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?

The relationship between functional language and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is crucial in patent claim interpretation. Key aspects include: 35 U.S.C. 112(f) allows for functional claiming in combination with means-plus-function or step-plus-function language It provides a way to use functional language without running afoul of indefiniteness concerns Claims using 112(f) are interpreted to cover the corresponding…

Read More

Are there any exceptions to the rule against mixing product and process elements in a single claim?

While the general rule discourages mixing product and process elements in a single claim, the MPEP 2173.05(p) does provide some nuance. It states: “In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, not the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may…

Read More