Can a patentability decision favoring the patentee be reviewed in ex parte reexamination?
No, a patentability decision favoring the patentee cannot be reviewed in ex parte reexamination. The MPEP 2273 clearly states: “The reexamination statute does not provide for review of a patentability decision favoring the patentee.” This principle is supported by case law, specifically “Greenwood v. Seiko Instruments, 8 USPQ2d 1455 (D.D.C. 1988).” This limitation is an…
Read MoreHow do reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts affect patentability?
Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts generally have limited impact on patentability unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes are often considered obvious modifications. Reversal of Parts: “mere reversal of such movement… was held to be an obvious modification.” (In re Gazda) Duplication of Parts: “mere…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the ‘result’ in the function-way-result test for equivalence?
The ‘result’ component of the function-way-result test is crucial in establishing equivalence between a claimed invention and a prior art element. According to MPEP 2183: “The examiner must explain… how [the prior art element] achieves substantially the same result as the claimed invention.” The significance of the ‘result’ prong lies in: Demonstrating that the outcome…
Read MoreWhat is a result-effective variable in patent law?
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05: “A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable…
Read MoreCan untimely papers returned or expunged during ex parte reexamination be resubmitted later?
Yes, untimely papers that were initially returned or expunged during the ex parte reexamination process can potentially be resubmitted later in the proceedings. MPEP 2225 provides guidance on this matter: “If the submission of the returned/expunged papers is appropriate later in the proceedings, they may be filed and accepted by the Office at that time.”…
Read MoreWhat are the restrictions on submitting copending reexamination proceedings and applications?
The USPTO has specific restrictions regarding the submission of copending reexamination proceedings and applications during inter partes reexamination. MPEP 2686 states: “It is not required nor is it permitted that parties submit copies of copending reexamination proceedings and applications (which copies can be mistaken for a new request/filing); rather, submitters may provide a notice identifying…
Read MoreWhat restrictions apply to the furnishing of samples of biological materials?
Furnishing samples of biological materials is subject to certain restrictions to prevent misuse and ensure proper access. MPEP 2410 outlines several key restrictions: “The depositor may contract with the depository to restrict the furnishing of samples to named persons or to organizations for a specified period.” These restrictions may include: Limiting access to specific individuals…
Read MoreAre there any restrictions on who can file for ex parte reexamination?
Yes, there is one specific restriction mentioned in MPEP 2212: “The only ‘person’ who is barred from filing a request for ex parte reexamination of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 302 is one who is barred from doing so by the estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) based on inter…
Read MoreHow are restriction requirements handled for nucleotide sequence inventions in national applications?
For national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the handling of restriction requirements for nucleotide sequence inventions follows standard procedures. MPEP 2434 states: “For national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), polynucleotide inventions will be considered for restriction, rejoinder, and examination practice in accordance with the standards set forth in MPEP Chapter 800.” This means…
Read MoreHow does a restriction requirement affect biological deposit obligations?
A restriction requirement can impact biological deposit obligations in patent applications. The MPEP 2411.01 provides guidance on this situation: “In the event of a restriction requirement, all claims requiring a deposit must be limited to the elected subject matter that relates to the deposit.” This means that if a restriction requirement is made, and the…
Read More