Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...
The examination is intended to measure the applicant's familiarity with USPTO procedures, ethics rules, federal statutes, and regulations. The applicant is allowed to use an electronic copy of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in the computer-based examination (and historically had access to a paper copy of the MPEP for the pencil-and-paper test), but is strictly prohibited from ...
The case law "forecloses a purely literal reading of § 101." [ 4 ] The concept is elaborated in the article: machine-or-transformation test . A method patent claim can be infringed only when a single person or entity (including contractually obligated agents) practices all of the claimed steps. [ 5 ]
As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. [2] The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, [3] but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines. [4]
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
For example, in 2022 the US Department of Justice submitted a brief to the SCOTUS in the case America Axle v. Neapco. The brief's main arguments are: [69] (1) in the last 50 years the US Supreme Court issued several decisions introducing a patent-eligibility requirement into USC 101, which have no basis in legislative acts;
2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine (MPEP) is a research drug which was one of the first compounds found to act as a selective antagonist for the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype mGluR5. After being originally patented as a liquid crystal for LCDs, it was developed by the pharmaceutical company Novartis in the late 1990s. [ 1 ]
The analysis is thus essentially an obviousness analysis under section 103 of the patent law, [5] rather than (as it was in earlier times) an analysis of statutory subject matter under what is now section 101 of the patent law. [6] "Printed matter” is evaluated in a two-step test. [7]