What are the main conditions for granting a patent?
The main conditions precedent to the grant of a patent are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112. These sections outline the requirements for: Patentable subject matter (§101) Novelty (§102) Non-obviousness (§103) Specification and claims (§112) An invention must meet all these conditions to be granted a patent. To learn more: patent…
Read MoreHow does ‘long-felt need’ relate to non-obviousness in patent law?
‘Long-felt need’ is an important factor in establishing non-obviousness of an invention in patent law. According to MPEP 716.04: ‘Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most recent alleged improvement.’ The…
Read MoreWhat are the legal precedents relevant to the utility requirement in patent law?
The utility requirement in patent law is supported by various legal precedents. MPEP 716.08 directs readers to relevant sections for an overview of these precedents: “See MPEP § 2107 – § 2107.03 generally for utility examination guidelines and an overview of legal precedent relevant to the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101.” These sections of…
Read MoreWhat is the legal basis for the USPTO’s authority to require information?
The USPTO’s authority to require information during patent examination is rooted in statutory law. According to MPEP 704.10: The authority for the Office to make such requirements arises from the statutory requirements of examination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 131 and 132. Specifically: 35 U.S.C. 131 requires the USPTO to examine applications and issue patents when…
Read MoreWhat is the legal basis for using interference testimony to antedate a reference?
The legal basis for using interference testimony to antedate a reference is rooted in patent law and practice, as documented in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Specifically, MPEP 715.07(b) cites a legal precedent: Ex parte Bowyer, 1939 C.D. 5, 42 USPQ 526 (Comm’r Pat. 1939). This case established the practice of using interference…
Read MoreHow should examiners handle perpetual motion applications?
According to MPEP 707.07(g), patent applications directed to perpetual motion require special handling. The MPEP states: “Where disclosure is directed to perpetual motion… the best prior art readily available should be cited and its pertinence pointed out without specifically applying it to the claims.” This means that for perpetual motion applications, examiners should: Cite the…
Read MoreWhat are the grounds for rejecting claims in a patent application?
What are the grounds for rejecting claims in a patent application? The grounds for rejecting claims in a patent application are specified in MPEP 706 and include: Lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 Double patenting Lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. 101 Lack of enablement or written description under…
Read MoreHow does the failure of others relate to long-felt need in patent law?
The failure of others is closely related to long-felt need in patent law, as it helps strengthen the case for non-obviousness. According to MPEP 716.04: “Evidence of long-felt need and the failure of others to meet that need is appropriate for consideration in determining obviousness.” This relationship is significant because: It demonstrates that the problem…
Read MoreWhat are expected beneficial results in patent law?
Expected beneficial results are considered evidence of obviousness in patent law. The MPEP clearly states: “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” (MPEP 716.02(c)) This means that if the beneficial results of an invention would have been expected based on the prior…
Read MoreAre there exceptions to comprehensive patent examination?
Yes, there are exceptions to comprehensive patent examination. MPEP 707.07(g) outlines specific situations where limiting examination to a particular issue may be appropriate: When an application is too informal for a complete action on the merits (See MPEP § 702.01) When there is an undue multiplicity of claims and no successful telephone request for election…
Read More