How does the material or article worked upon affect apparatus claims?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. The material or article worked upon generally does not limit apparatus claims. As stated in MPEP 2115 : “ Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. ” This principle is based on legal precedents such as In re Otto and In re Young . The MPEP further explains: “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” This means that the focus should be on the structural elements of the apparatus itself, not the materials it processes. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Claims Not Limited by Material Worked Upon MPEP 2115 Claims Not Patentable Based on Process MPEP 2115 Claims Must Be Fact-Dependent MPEP 2115 Claims Cannot Be Based on Method of Curling Hair Using Device MPEP 2115 Prohibited Manner of Use Not Relevant to Machine Patentability MPEP 2115 Use of Machine Does Not Affect Patentability MPEP 2115 Claims Not Directed to Hair Curling Method MPEP 2115 Claims Not Patentable Based on Hair Curling Method MPEP 2115 Structure Not Required for Obviousness MPEP 2115 Structure Over Function MPEP 2115 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How does In re Casey relate to material worked upon in patent claims? What is the significance of In re Otto in patent law? How does In re Young affect patent claim interpretation? What are the limitations of MPEP 2115&#8217;s guidance on material worked upon? What is the difference between structural elements and material worked upon in patent claims?