As of February 14, 2018, at last count, there have been six substantive opinions rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating to 35 U.S.C. §101, creating an unusually large body of §101 jurisprudence within only six weeks of the calendar year. Two of these opinions, Move, Inc. v. RE/MAX Int’l, Inc., …
Category: 112
35 U.S. Code § 112 – Specification.
(a)In General.—
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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(b)Conclusion.—
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(c)Form.—
A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form.
(d)Reference in Dependent Forms.—
Subject to subsection (e), 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.
(e)Reference in Multiple Dependent Form.—
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.
(f)Element in Claim for a Combination.—
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.
Fed Circuit Watch: Gaming of Patent System Cannot Save Patent from Invalidation on Double Patenting Grounds
On January 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down In re Janssen Biotech, Inc.,[1] which dealt with the specific issue of the double patenting safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. §121.[2] This case is an example of playing games with the patent prosecution system in order to better position …
McAward as Precedential and Lower Standard for Indefiniteness During Prosecution
Way back on August 25, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office designated Ex parte McAward[1] as precedential authority for defining the USPTO and the PTAB’s policy on assessing indefiniteness as defined under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)[2] during prosecution. However, McAward does not so much define the USPTO’s rules on indefiniteness but rather reasserts its position …