Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...
An invention must meet several requirements to be eligible for a patent. The invention must concern patentable subject matter. [5] The invention must be novel and the application for a patent on the invention must be timely. [6] The invention must be non-obvious. [7] Finally, the invention must be sufficiently documented. [8]
"Wherein" clauses limit the scope of the claim. [21] Other forms of purpose language are "whereby" and "thereby" clauses, similar to the "wherein" clauses just described, [22] and statements of intended use in a claim preamble (depending on facts of case, preamble may or may not limit claim scope; in this case it was the "essence of the ...
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
Rule 43(1) EPC notably imposes that an independent claim should be drafted in a two-part form, including a preamble and a characterizing part. The preamble, which is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion", [11] includes all the features of the claim that in combination are known in a prior art document, namely the closest prior art ...
Only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable." (Great Atlantic, 1950) when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.
35 U.S.C. § 271(c), or "contributory infringement," is triggered when a seller provides a part or component that, while not itself infringing of any patent, has a particular use as part of some other machine or composition that is covered by a patent. [4]
First, the Internet is not a "particular machine." The Internet is an intangible abstraction. Second, the limitation to a particular technological environment is a mere field-of-use limitation, which does not suffice under sec. 101. Third, the use of the Internet does not impose meaningful limits on the preemptive scope of the claims.