Posts Tagged: § 112


A Primer on Indefiniteness and Means Plus Function

Means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within …
By Gene Quinn
29 days ago 2

Patent Drafting: Proving You’re in Possession of the Invention

The purpose of the written description requirement is broader than to merely explain how to make and use the invention, which is the subject of the enablement …
By Gene Quinn
1 month ago 3

Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Indefiniteness of Mixed Subject Matter Claims

Because it is clear when infringement occurs, and the scope of the claims is reasonably certain, the Court reversed the judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness... Claims …

Patent Drafting: Understanding the Enablement Requirement

The enablement requirement is specifically aimed at ensuring the claimed invention is described with sufficient detail so the relevant person of skill in the art or technology …
By Gene Quinn
2 months ago 13

Patentability: The Adequate Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112

The crux of this so-called adequate description requirement is that once the first four patentability requirements are satisfied the applicant still must describe the invention with enough …
By Gene Quinn
6 months ago 1

§ 112 Rejections: Where They Are Found and How Applicants Handle Them

In this article, we will explore both § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections by taking a look at where they are most common, how applicants respond to them, and …
By James Cosgrove
7 months ago 0

The coupling of § 101 and § 112, and what it means for patent practitioners

A recent opinion by the Federal Circuit suggests that there will be considerable uncertainty about the respective boundaries of §§ 101 and 112 in the years ahead. In Trading Technologies …
By John Cox, PhD & Michael Nullet
9 months ago 9

Sections 101 and 112: Eligibility, Patentability, or Somewhere in Between?

Sections 101 and 112 provide their own separate limitations to the scope of patent protection in ways that are sometimes complimentary and sometimes contradictory... Inventors are motivated to maximize …

A STEPP In the Right Direction: A review of the PTO Stakeholder Training on Examination and Practice and Procedure (STEPP)

Hands on exercises were part of the program. In reading and understanding a patent application, materials were provided how examiners learn to break down an application in …

Section 103 Rejections: How Common Are They and How Should You Respond?

There are several major statutory rejections that an applicant can receive during the course of patent prosecution at the USPTO, each one corresponding to the relevant section …

Legislating from the Bench: Overusing §101 for sake of expediency

Unfortunately, §102, §103, and §112 issues can and do get wrapped into the court’s §101 reasoning, thus resulting in opinions with no differentiation. In the end, courts are forcing a …
By Gene Quinn & Audrey Ogurchak
2 years ago 1

Patent Prosecution: 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Must Be Raised Before a § 102 or § 103

Logically, if the application does not describe an invention in terms that allows one skilled in the art to make and use it, then the Patent Office …
By Dale B. Halling
5 years ago 20