Showing 2 ideas for tag "mpep"

2100 Patentability

Inaccurate paraphrase of In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114(I) trending idea

Examiners often reference the decision of In re Schreiber, 1218 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) for the proposition that “claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function” because it is described this way in MPEP §2114(I). However, it appears that the Schreiber court itself never made such a statement. Rather, the court found that because the claimed invention... more »


3 votes
6 up votes
3 down votes

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

MPEP 608.02(a) - when are drawings and content thereof required trending idea

The MPEP should more clearly spell out when drawings are actually necessary. In process inventions, it seems that drawings should not be required, but the text of MPEP 608.02 seems to be an open invitation to examiners to make unnecessary requirements. Moreover, what exactly does "admits of illustration by a drawing" mean? Is it not possible to articulate the statute in more clear language into the rule? 35 USC 113... more »


2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes