What is the “ABsp/Bsp” example in MPEP 806.05(c) and how does it illustrate subcombination-combination distinctness?
What is the “ABsp/Bsp” example in MPEP 806.05(c) and how does it illustrate subcombination-combination distinctness?
The MPEP 806.05(c) provides an “ABsp/Bsp” example to illustrate subcombination-combination distinctness:
“An example of this situation is the combination ABsp and subcombination Bsp where (1) Bsp has utility by itself or in other combinations, and (2) ABsp as claimed does not require the particulars of Bsp (e.g., the combination ABsp could use any existing Bsp but does not require a specific one).”
In this example:
- ABsp represents the combination (e.g., a car with a specific engine)
- Bsp represents the subcombination (e.g., the specific engine)
This example demonstrates two-way distinctness because:
- The subcombination Bsp has utility on its own or in other combinations (e.g., the engine could be used in other vehicles or machinery)
- The combination ABsp doesn’t rely on the specific details of Bsp for patentability (e.g., the car could use various engine types)
This illustration helps examiners and applicants understand the criteria for establishing distinctness in combination-subcombination situations.
To learn more: