Archive for category: MPEP Q and A Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

Is it true that living subject matter with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, such as the claimed bacterium produced by genetic engineering, are excluded from patent protection by 35 U.S.C. 101?

Answer:

No, it is not true. For example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “discoveries that possess ‘markedly different characteristics from any found in nature,’ … are eligible for patent protection.”

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers patentability.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions.

Section Summary:

This question and answer comes from section 2105  of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 2105.

2105 Patent Eligible Subject Matter — Living Subject Matter

This section covers living subject matter, providing examples of what can be and cannot be patentable. For example, new minerals discovered in the earth are not patentable, but microorganisms produced by genetic engineering can be patented. In addition, it gives specifics on how no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism, which was added in the America Invents Act (AIA).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

What are the two criteria for subject matter eligibility?

Answer:

First, the claimed invention must be in one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.

Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called “judicially recognized exceptions” or simply “exceptions”) are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers patentability.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions.

Section Summary:

This question and answer comes from section 2106 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 2106.

2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

This section discusses the two criteria for subject matter eligibility which are; that the claimed invention must be in one of the four statutory categories and that the claimed invention must also qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. It also covers details of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) including that the BRI of the claim must be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Lastly, there is a summary of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis and a flowchart outlining the steps.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

Name two ways a patent may be corrected or amended.

Answer:

A patent may be corrected or amended in eight ways, namely by:

1. reissue,
2. the issuance of a certificate of correction which becomes a part of the patent,
3. disclaimer,
4. reexamination,
5. supplemental examination,
6. inter partes review,
7. post grant review, and
8. covered business method review

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1400 of the MPEP. This chapter covers correction of patents.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions.

Section Summary:

This question and answer comes from section 1401 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 1401.

1401 Reissue

The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 251 which discusses the reissue of defective patents, permit the reissue of a patent in order to correct an error in the patent made without any deceptive intention and provide the criteria for the reissue patent.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

List two statutes that grounds for post-grant review may be raised for.

Answer:

Grounds for post-grant review include grounds that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 including those based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. Other grounds available for post-grant review include 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112, with the exception of compliance with the best mode requirement.

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in the following supplement: Inter Partes, Post Grant, and Covered Business Method Review Final Rules. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may not be applicable.

Section Summary:

This question comes from the following supplement: Inter Partes, Post Grant, and Covered Business Method Review Final Rules.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

When will a practitioner be responsible for another practitioner’s violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct?

Answer:

A practitioner shall be responsible for another practitioner’s violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct if:

• The practitioner orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
• The practitioner is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other practitioner practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other practitioner, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in the following supplement: Changes to Representation of Others Before the USPTO Final Rules. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may not be applicable.

Section Summary:

This question and answer comes from the following supplement: Changes to Representation of Others Before the USPTO Final Rules. It specifically comes from 37 C.F.R. 11.501 which covers responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory practitioners.