What is the significance of In re Otto in patent law?

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. In re Otto is a significant case in patent law, particularly for apparatus claims. According to MPEP 2115 , the case established that: “[I]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) The case involved claims directed to a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the patentability of the device could not be based on the procedure for using it or the material it worked upon. This principle helps examiners and practitioners focus on the structural elements of an apparatus claim rather than its intended use or materials processed. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Claims Not Limited by Material Worked Upon MPEP 2115 Claims Not Directed to Hair Curling Method MPEP 2115 Claims Not Patentable Based on Process MPEP 2115 Claims Cannot Be Based on Method of Curling Hair Using Device MPEP 2115 Prohibited Claims Must Be Fact-Dependent MPEP 2115 Claims Not Patentable Based on Hair Curling Method MPEP 2115 Manner of Use Not Relevant to Machine Patentability MPEP 2115 Structure Not Required for Obviousness MPEP 2115 Structure Over Function MPEP 2115 Use of Machine Not Limiting MPEP 2115 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How does In re Casey relate to material worked upon in patent claims? How does In re Young affect patent claim interpretation? How does the material or article worked upon affect apparatus claims? 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?