How should prophetic examples be written in patent applications?
Prophetic examples in patent applications should be written in the present tense to distinguish them from working examples. The MPEP 2164.02 states: “Paper examples should be described in the past tense. Prophetic examples (paper examples describing prophetic embodiments or simulations) should be written in the present tense.” This distinction in tense helps readers and examiners…
Read MoreWhat are working and prophetic examples in patent applications?
Working and prophetic examples are two types of examples that can be included in patent applications: Working examples are based on work actually performed. Prophetic examples describe embodiments of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results achieved. As stated in MPEP 2164.02: “An example may be ‘working’ or ‘prophetic.’…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between working examples and prophetic examples in patent applications?
Working examples and prophetic examples serve different purposes in patent applications: Working examples are based on actual experiments or results that have been carried out. Prophetic examples describe anticipated results of experiments or procedures that haven’t been performed yet. According to MPEP 2164.02: “An example may be “working” or “prophetic.” A working example is based…
Read MoreAre working examples required for patent enablement?
While working examples can be helpful in demonstrating enablement, they are not always required. The MPEP 2164.02 states: “The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation.” However, the absence…
Read MoreHow do working examples relate to claiming a genus in patents?
When claiming a genus in a patent application, working examples play an important role in demonstrating enablement. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this issue: “For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of…
Read MoreWhat are the risks of using prophetic examples in patent applications?
While prophetic examples can be valuable in patent applications, they also come with certain risks that applicants should be aware of: Potential for Inequitable Conduct: If prophetic examples are not clearly distinguished from working examples, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead the USPTO. Enablement Challenges: Overly speculative or implausible prophetic examples may…
Read MoreCan prophetic examples be used to satisfy the enablement requirement?
Yes, prophetic examples can be used to satisfy the enablement requirement in patent applications. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this: “Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be “working” or “prophetic.”” However, it’s…
Read MoreWhat issues can arise from improperly presented prophetic examples?
Improperly presented prophetic examples in patent applications can lead to serious issues, including questions about the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure, and potential inequitable conduct charges. The MPEP 2164.02 warns: “When prophetic examples are described in a manner that is ambiguous or that implies that the results are actual, the adequacy and accuracy of…
Read MoreHow do examiners evaluate prophetic examples in patent applications?
Patent examiners evaluate prophetic examples in the context of the entire disclosure to determine if they contribute to meeting the enablement requirement. According to MPEP 2164.02: “The mere fact that something has not actually been done does not mean that it cannot be enabled; there is no requirement that an inventor actually carry out the…
Read MoreWhat is the “correlation” issue in patent enablement?
The “correlation” issue in patent enablement refers to the relationship between in vitro or in vivo animal model assays and a disclosed or claimed method of use. The MPEP 2164.02 explains: “‘Correlation’ as used herein refers to the relationship between in vitro or in vivo animal model assays and a disclosed or a claimed method…
Read More