What factors are considered in determining undue experimentation?
The determination of whether experimentation is undue involves considering multiple factors. According to MPEP 2164.01(a), these factors include, but are not limited to: The breadth of the claims The nature of the invention The state of the prior art The level of one of ordinary skill The level of predictability in the art The amount…
Read MoreHow is “undue experimentation” considered in determining enabling disclosure?
“Undue experimentation” is a key factor in determining whether a prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure. The MPEP Section 2121.01 states: “The disclosure in an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter; mere naming or description of the subject matter is insufficient, if it cannot be produced without…
Read MoreWhat constitutes undue experimentation in computer programming patent applications?
Undue experimentation in computer programming patent applications is a key consideration in determining whether a disclosure is enabling. The MPEP states: “The amount of experimentation that is considered routine will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of individual cases and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No exact numerical standard has been fixed…
Read MoreWhat is unauthorized participation by a protestor in patent examination?
Unauthorized participation by a protestor refers to any ex parte communication between the protestor and Office personnel, including examiners, regarding substantive matters of a patent application. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Section 1907 explicitly states: “Office personnel must exercise care to ensure that substantive matters relating to the application are not discussed ex…
Read MoreWhat types of prior art can be submitted in a protest under MPEP 1901.02?
According to MPEP 1901.02, protestors can submit various types of prior art in a protest, including: Patents or publications Information on public use or sale Information on other public knowledge or activities Potential interferences The MPEP states: “The protest may be based on any facts or information of which the protestor has knowledge.” This allows…
Read MoreWhat types of disclosures are considered under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, various types of disclosures are considered. According to MPEP 2152.04, the term “disclosure” encompasses the following: Being patented Described in a printed publication In public use On sale Otherwise available to the public Being described in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application The MPEP states:…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the two-month time period in patent disclosures?
What is the significance of the two-month time period in patent disclosures? The two-month time period is significant in patent disclosures for the following reasons: Timely disclosure: It encourages prompt submission of information to the USPTO. Avoiding late fees: Submitting within two months can help avoid additional fees for late information disclosure statements. Demonstrating diligence:…
Read MoreHow does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations? The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach: “The Supreme Court in KSR…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims through form paragraph 7.35.01. This paragraph is used when a trademark or trade name is used as a limitation in a claim to identify or describe a particular material or product. The form paragraph states: Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2].…
Read MoreWhat is the timeline for preparing and reviewing an examiner’s answer in inter partes reexamination?
The timeline for preparing and reviewing an examiner’s answer in an inter partes reexamination proceeding is outlined in MPEP 2677. The key steps and timeframes are as follows: The examiner’s answer is to be completed by the examiner within two weeks after the appeal conference. After completion, the examiner obtains the initials of the appeal…
Read More