What is the difference between structural elements and material worked upon in patent claims?
In patent claims, particularly apparatus claims, it’s crucial to distinguish between structural elements and material worked upon. MPEP 2115 provides guidance on this distinction: Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Structural elements are the physical components that make up the claimed apparatus. These are the positively recited…
Read MoreWhat are the limitations of MPEP 2115’s guidance on material worked upon?
While MPEP 2115 provides important guidance on how material or articles worked upon affect apparatus claims, it’s crucial to understand its limitations. The MPEP states: Note that this line of cases is limited to claims directed to machinery which works upon an article or material in its intended use. This means that the principle of…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2114 address the recitation of material worked upon by an apparatus?
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on how to treat claims that include recitations of material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The key points are: Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2112.01 address material or article worked upon by apparatus?
How does MPEP 2112.01 address material or article worked upon by apparatus? MPEP 2112.01 provides guidance on how to treat claims involving materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus. The manual states: “The materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus do not limit apparatus claims.” This principle is important for patent examiners and…
Read MoreHow 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