How does the Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. case relate to the “Art Recognized Suitability” doctrine?
The Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. case is a landmark decision that established the principle of “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” in patent law. This case is frequently cited in patent examinations and legal proceedings when considering the obviousness of material selections. According to MPEP 2144.07: “Claims to a printing ink…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the ‘In re Preda’ case in understanding implicit disclosure?
The In re Preda case is significant in understanding implicit disclosure as it provides a clear example of how the concept is applied in patent examination. According to MPEP 2144.01: “A process for catalytically producing carbon disulfide by reacting sulfur vapor and methane in the presence of charcoal at a temperature of ‘about 750-830°C’ was…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the In re Kerkhoven case in patent law?
The In re Kerkhoven case is significant in patent law as it established a key principle regarding the combination of known elements. As cited in MPEP 2144.06, the case states: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose,…
Read MoreHow can inconsistencies between claims affect their validity?
Inconsistencies between claims can significantly affect their validity by rendering the scope of the claims uncertain. The MPEP 2173.03 addresses this issue: “In addition, inconsistencies in the meaning of terms or phrases between claims may render the scope of the claims to be uncertain.” This principle is illustrated in recent case law. For example, in…
Read MoreHow can a claim be indefinite even if it appears clear on its face?
A claim can be indefinite even if it appears clear on its face when there’s a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure. This inconsistency can render the scope of the claim uncertain. The MPEP 2173.03 states: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a…
Read MoreWhat other cases support the Art Recognized Suitability doctrine?
Several cases support and further develop the Art Recognized Suitability doctrine. The MPEP 2144.07 cites two additional cases: In re Leshin: “In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of Ex parte Benke in relation to restriction requirements?
Ex parte Benke is a significant case in patent law that supports the practice of issuing multiple restriction requirements. MPEP 811.02 cites this case: “Ex parte Benke, 1904 C.D. 63, 108 OG 1588 (Comm’r Pat. 1904).” This case, decided by the Commissioner of Patents in 1904, established the precedent that allows patent examiners to issue…
Read More