Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing MPEP 2172
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==[[MPEP 2172|2172 Subject Matter Which Applicants Regard as Their Invention]]== | ==[[MPEP 2172|2172 Subject Matter Which Applicants Regard as Their Invention]]== | ||
<noinclude | <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | ||
I.FOCUS FOR EXAMINATION | |||
A rejection based on the failure to satisfy this | A rejection based on the failure to satisfy this | ||
Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
invention set forth in the claims must be presumed, in | invention set forth in the claims must be presumed, in | ||
the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be that | the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be that | ||
which applicants regard as their invention. | which applicants regard as their invention. In reMoore, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971). | ||
II.EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY | |||
Evidence that shows that a claim does not correspond | Evidence that shows that a claim does not correspond | ||
in scope with that which applicant regards as | in scope with that which applicant regards as | ||
applicant’s invention may be found, for example, in | |||
contentions or admissions contained in briefs or | contentions or admissions contained in briefs or | ||
remarks filed by applicant, or in affidavits filed under 37 CFR | remarks filed by applicant, Solomon v. Kimberly- | ||
1.132. The content of | Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d 1279 (Fed. | ||
Cir. 2000); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ | |||
541 (CCPA 1969), or in affidavits filed under 37 CFR | |||
1.132, In re Cormany, 476 F.2d 998, 177 USPQ 450 | |||
(CCPA 1973). The content of applicant’s specification | |||
is not used as evidence that the scope of the claims is | is not used as evidence that the scope of the claims is | ||
inconsistent with the subject matter which applicants | inconsistent with the subject matter which applicants | ||
regard as their invention. | regard as their invention. As noted in In re Ehrreich, | ||
590 F.2d 902, 200 USPQ 504 (CCPA 1979), agreement, | |||
or lack thereof, between the claims and the | |||
specification is properly considered only with respect | |||
to 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; it is irrelevant to | |||
compliance with the second paragraph of that section. | |||
III.SHIFT IN CLAIMS PERMITTED | |||
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 does not | The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 does not | ||
prohibit applicants from changing what they regard as | prohibit applicants from changing what they regard as | ||
their invention during the pendency of the application. The fact that claims in a continuation | their invention during the pendency of the application. | ||
application were directed to originally | In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 170 USPQ 213 (CCPA | ||
1971) (Applicant was permitted to claim and submit | |||
comparative evidence with respect to claimed subject | |||
matter which originally was only the preferred | |||
embodiment within much broader claims (directed to | |||
a method).). The fact that claims in a continuation | |||
application were directed to originally disclosed subject | |||
matter which applicants had not regarded as part | matter which applicants had not regarded as part | ||
of their invention when the parent application was | of their invention when the parent application was | ||
filed | filed was held not to prevent the continuation application | ||
from receiving benefits of the filing date of the | from receiving benefits of the filing date of the | ||
parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120. | parent application under 35 U.S.C. 120. In re Brower, | ||
433 F.2d 813, 167 USPQ 684 (CCPA 1970). | |||
2172.01Unclaimed Essential Matter[R-1] | |||
A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling. Such essential matter may include missing elements, steps or necessary structural cooperative relationships of elements described by the applicant(s) as necessary to practice the invention. | A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential | ||
to the invention as described in the specification | |||
or in other statements of record may be rejected under | |||
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling. In re | |||
Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA | |||
1976). See also MPEP § | |||
2164.08(c). Such | |||
essential | |||
matter may include missing elements, steps | |||
or necessary structural cooperative relationships of | |||
elements described by the applicant(s) as necessary to | |||
practice the invention. | |||
In addition, a claim which fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for failure to point out | In addition, a claim which fails to interrelate essential | ||
and distinctly claim the invention. | elements of the invention as defined by applicant( | ||
s) in the specification may be rejected under 35 | |||
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for failure to point out | |||
and distinctly claim the invention. See In re Venezia, | |||
530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); In re | |||
Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). | |||
But see Ex parte Nolden, 149 USPQ 378, 380 (Bd. | |||
Pat. App. 1965) (“[I]t is not essential to a patentable | |||
combination that there be interdependency between | |||
the elements of the claimed device or that all the elements | |||
operate concurrently toward the desired | |||
result”); Ex parte Huber, 148 USPQ 447, 448-49 (Bd. | |||
Pat. App. 1965) (A claim does not necessarily fail to | |||
comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph where | |||
the various elements do not function simultaneously, | |||
are not directly functionally related, do not directly | |||
intercooperate, and/or serve independent purposes.). |