Can post-filing date references be used to demonstrate lack of enablement?
Generally, post-filing date references should not be used to demonstrate lack of enablement. MPEP 2164.05(a) states: “In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled.“ However, there are exceptions to this rule. The MPEP explains: “Exceptions to this rule could occur if a later-dated reference provides…
Read MoreCan a reference published after the filing date be used under MPEP 2124?
Can a reference published after the filing date be used under MPEP 2124? Yes, under certain circumstances, a reference published after the filing date of an application can be used as described in MPEP 2124. However, its use is limited and specific. The MPEP states: “References which do not qualify as prior art because they…
Read MoreHow is the plain meaning of claim terms determined in patent examination?
The plain meaning of claim terms is crucial in patent examination. According to MPEP 2173.01: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by…
Read MoreHow does the “person of ordinary skill in the art” concept affect claim interpretation?
The concept of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA) is crucial in patent claim interpretation. According to MPEP 2111, claim interpretation should be based on how a POSITA would understand the claim terms. The MPEP states: “The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be…
Read MoreWhat is the “person of ordinary skill in the art” in obviousness determinations?
The “person of ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical figure used in obviousness determinations under 35 U.S.C. 103. The MPEP explains: “To reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical ‘person of ordinary skill in the art’.” This…
Read MoreWhat does “patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain” mean?
This principle means that patents can be used as prior art references beyond just the specific inventions they describe. As stated in MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of…
Read MoreCan a patentee suggest an interference?
No, a patentee cannot directly suggest an interference. According to MPEP 2304.03, “A patentee cannot suggest an interference under this section“. However, there are limited options available to patentees: A patentee may file a reissue application to become an applicant, which would then allow them to suggest an interference. Alternatively, a patentee may, to a…
Read MoreWhat options does a patentee have regarding interference proceedings?
While a patentee cannot directly suggest an interference, they have two main options regarding interference proceedings: File a reissue application: By filing a reissue application, a patentee can become an applicant, which would then allow them to suggest an interference. Alert the examiner: As stated in MPEP 2304.03, “A patentee may, however, to the limited…
Read MoreWhat is the process for a patentee to alert an examiner about potentially interfering claims?
According to MPEP 2304.03, a patentee can alert an examiner about potentially interfering claims in an application, but this process is limited: “A patentee may, however, to the limited extent permitted under 37 CFR 1.291, alert an examiner to the existence of interfering claims in an application.” The process involves: Submitting a protest under 37…
Read MoreWhat are “patentably indistinct claims” in the context of interfering applications?
“Patentably indistinct claims” in the context of interfering applications refer to claims from different applications that are substantially similar or overlapping in scope. According to MPEP 2304.01(d): “Interfering claims of applications with either the same assignee or the same inventive entity are ‘patentably indistinct claims’ within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.78(f).” These claims are…
Read More