Posts Tagged: 35 USC 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 Webinar: Trends and Realities of 112 Disclosure Requirements

Join Gene Quinn on Thursday, November 9 at 2:00 PM ET for a free webinar conversation on the trends and reality of 112 disclosure requirements. Gene will be joined by …
By Gene Quinn
1 month ago 0

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

Generic Examples of Claimed Compounds Do Not Satisfy Enablement Requirement

On June 21, 2017, In Storer v. Clark, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s interference decision, which awarded priority to Clark’s pending application (…

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

Use of ‘Means’ with term that Designates Structure Does Not Invoke § 112 ¶ 6

MindGeek and Playboy filed an IPR petition. The Board determined that § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply because “‘wireless device means’ is not purely functional language, but rather is language …