How does MPEP 2114 apply to functional language in apparatus claims?
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on how to evaluate functional language in apparatus claims. The key points are: Functional language in apparatus claims is limited to what the claimed structure is capable of doing, not what it actually does in operation. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2114 treat recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed?
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual: “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). This means…
Read MoreHow are statements of intended use in the preamble treated?
Statements of intended use in the preamble are evaluated to determine if they result in a structural or manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. As stated in MPEP 2111.02: “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether…
Read MoreWhat is the “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine in patent law?
The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated in MPEP 2144.07: “The…
Read More