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 ...
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO / Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office , and it is considered to be broader in general.
To be patentable, a technology must not only be "new" but also "non-obvious." The US requirement for non-obviousness corresponds to the inventive step requirement in other countries. An "invention" is obvious (and therefore ineligible for a patent) if a person of "ordinary skill" in the relevant field of technology would have thought the ...
"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 ...
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The two particularly contentious areas, with numerous reversals of prior legislative and judicial decisions, have been computer-based and biological inventions. [9] [10] The US practice of patentable subject matter is very different from that of the European Patent Office.
Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection (also called "statutory patentable subject-matter") Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new) Non-obvious (in United States patent law ) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law and under the Patent Cooperation Treaty )
It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a "different state or thing." We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents.
The current legal analysis, as expressed in the definitive decision on printed matter, In re Gulack, [4] is as follows: The differences between a newly claimed substrate bearing printed matter and a prior art substrate, where the only point of departure from the prior art is in the printed matter itself, are not entitled to patentable weight ...