The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of
the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or
with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
his invention.
A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in
dependent or multiple dependent form.
Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain a
reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation
of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to
incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative
only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further
limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not
serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent
claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the
particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or
acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof
Determining Whether Your Claimed Invention Complies with 35
U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph Requirements (MPEP § 2161)
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains three separate and distinct
requirements:
(A) adequate written description,
(B) enablement, and
(C) best mode.
Adequate Written Description (MPEP § 2163)
For the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must
reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the applicant was in
possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention. Regents of the
University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566-67, 43 USPQ2d
1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354, 47 USPQ2d
1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The claimed invention subject matter need not be
described literally, i.e., using the same terms, in order for the disclosure to
satisfy the description requirement. Software aspects of inventions, for
example, may be described functionally. See Robotic Vision Sys. v. View Eng’g,
Inc., 112 F.3d 1163, 1166, 42 USPQ2d 1619, 1622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Fonar Corp.
v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc., 982 F.2d 1527, 1537-38, 25 USPQ2d
1241, 1248-49 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See MPEP § 2163 for further guidance with
respect to the evaluation of a patent application for compliance with the
written description requirement.
Enabling Disclosure (MPEP § 2164)
An applicant’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and
use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The fact that
experimentation is complex, however, will not make it undue if a person of skill
in the art typically engages in such complex experimentation. See MPEP § 2164 et
seq. for detailed guidance with regard to the enablement requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Best Mode (MPEP § 2165) Determining compliance with the best mode requirement
requires a two-prong inquiry:
at the time the application was filed, did the inventor possess a best mode for
practicing the invention; and
if the inventor did possess a best mode, does the written description disclose
the best mode such that a person skilled in the art could practice it. See MPEP
§ 2165 et seq for additional guidance. Deficiencies related to disclosure of the
best mode for carrying out the claimed invention are not usually encountered
during examination of an application because evidence to support such a
deficiency is seldom in the record. Fonar, 107 F.3d at 1548-49, 41 USPQ2d at
1804-05.
Also called a non-provisional,
regular, or ‘full’ patent. Best quality, 20 year protection for useful
structures, functions, compositions, & and methods.
When cost and speed is top priority. Our
Low-cost service, assures a legally valid filing for effective, fast provisional
"Patent Pending" status- giving you up to 1 year to file a corresponding
Utility Patent Application.
Smart 1st step before investing much time
and money, we research and opine on your idea’s likely patentability,
to also help you better distinguish
your innovation from prior solutions
found.
Protects a product’s form and artistic
appearance from being copied. Can complement the Utility patent protection
when both form and function are unique. Great for product designers.
We have
extensive experience and capabilities in all aspects of International PCT
process and foreign national stage filings. We have one of the most
extensive foreign associate networks, covering all 170+ member countries of
WIPO, and we guarantee to meet deadlines and be the most competitive on
pricing for quality results.
Need help learning about and determining your company's IP options? You may want to schedule a consultation with a Bay Area IP Professional to most efficiently and effectively assist you in making your next step, the right one.
29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4
Legal Notice: None of the information provided in this website should be construed
as or used as legal advice. The information provided here is for educational purposes
only, in order to help inventors learn background information before consulting
a practitioner. Since the best course of action in any specific matter will depend
on the specific facts of the matter, NOTHING on this site can provide a substitute
for the advice of competent legal counsel. Consult with a professional for specific
advice regarding your particular situation.
Bay Area Intellectual Property Group, LLC. © 2000-2023 , All Rights Reserved
?
Submit Questions
$
Request a Quote
Request Consult
Call for Free Info:
(415) 226-7180
We win patent for a great idea, but inventor gave up on it. We brokered a lucrative deal to bring it to market. See how...
Solo inventor hits a blockbuster product, yet USPTO blocks patent- we won the case...see how.
Fortune 500 companies need protection to launch new products. We help them avoid infringement. See how...
Hi-Tech Start-up must file many patents on limited budget to support venture funding. We provide successful solution. See how...
►Our Litigation Attorney thought your job on the patent was awesome...................... ►our company has always enjoyed working with your firm and you have again proved to us that you do quality work......................... ►I'd be glad to recommend your firm to any prospective client.......................... ►Impressed by your command of my case & laser sharp IP........................................ ►It's amazing how you can write so much about a simple design. ______________________ ►See more ...