Is exact wording required for anticipation?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29 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. Exact wording, or “ipsissimis verbis,” is not required for anticipation. The MPEP 2131 clarifies: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. (In re Bond) This means that while the prior art must disclose all elements of the claimed invention, it doesn’t need to use the exact same words as the claim. What matters is that the substance of the claimed elements is present in the prior art, regardless of the specific terminology used. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Elements Must Match Claim Order MPEP 2131 Required Invention Must Not Be Anticipated by Prior Art MPEP 2131 Permitted Claim Must Be Anticipated Over Prior Art MPEP 2131 Claim Must Be Anticipated Broadly MPEP 2131 Required Claim Must Be Fully Anticipated By Single Reference MPEP 2131 Claim Must Be Fully Disclosed In One Reference MPEP 2131 Claim Covers Multiple Structures Anticipated If Any Known MPEP 2131 Claim Must Be Fully Described MPEP 2131 Required Claim Must Be Anticipated By Single Prior Art Reference MPEP 2131 Derivation Proceeding Required for Identical Inventions MPEP 717.01(d) Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How does anticipation apply to claims covering multiple structures or compositions? What is anticipation in patent law? How is a claim rejected as anticipated? What is the &#8220;identical invention&#8221; requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102? How does inherency apply to anticipation rejections in patent examination?