What is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01?
What is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01? The “same article” principle is explained in MPEP 2112.01 as follows: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has…
Read MoreHow can an applicant rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims?
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I): “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art…
Read MoreWhat is the legal standard for establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product and apparatus claims?
According to MPEP 2112.01(I), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established when: The claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or The claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes This principle is supported by the following quote from…
Read MoreHow does non-functional printed matter affect the patentability of product claims?
Non-functional printed matter does not distinguish a claimed product from an otherwise identical prior art product. This principle is explained in MPEP 2112.01(III): “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of functional relationships between printed matter and the product in patent claims?
The functional relationship between printed matter and the product is crucial in determining the patentability of claims involving printed matter. According to MPEP 2112.01(III), the key question is: “[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86,…
Read MoreWhat are the conditions for a three-way restriction requirement in a patent application?
A three-way restriction requirement in a patent application can only be made under specific conditions. According to MPEP 806.05(i): “Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in a national application, a three way requirement for restriction can only be made where the process of making is…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of a process “specially adapted for” making a product in restriction practice?
In patent restriction practice, a process “specially adapted for” making a product has special significance. The MPEP 806.05(i) states: “Where an application contains claims to a product, claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from, as defined in MPEP § 806.05(f)) making the product, and claims to a process of using…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the “materially different” standard in MPEP 806.05(f)?
The “materially different” standard in MPEP 806.05(f) is crucial for determining distinctness between process and product claims. Its significance lies in: Establishing distinctness: The standard helps determine if the process and product are truly separate inventions. Guiding restriction requirements: It provides a basis for examiners to issue restriction requirements. Defining the scope of examination: It…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the phrase “another and materially different” in MPEP 806.05(f)?
What is the significance of the phrase “another and materially different” in MPEP 806.05(f)? The phrase “another and materially different” in MPEP 806.05(f) is crucial for establishing distinctness between a process of making and a product made. It signifies that: For the process: It must be capable of making a product that is significantly different…
Read MoreWhat options does an applicant have when facing a restriction requirement for product, process of making, and process of using claims?
When an application contains claims to a product, process of making, and process of using, the applicant may face a restriction requirement. According to MPEP 806.05(i): “Where an application contains claims to a product, claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from, as defined in MPEP § 806.05(f)) making the product,…
Read More