Home.   È   Case Law FAQ Home    È   Contact Info      È    Glossary     È     Question Submission Form

 

Section §112 Issues

1.  General 112 Issues
1.1:  A parent patent that does not enable sufficiently to give CIP claims priority, used as PA against the CIP.
1.2 Mixing apparatus and method elements.

 

2. Support in specification -- Para 1
2.1 Is PTO required to make prima facie case for lack of support by spec?

 

3. Claim indefiniteness -- Para 2
 

 

4. Dependent Claims -- Para 4
 4.1 Dependent must further limit the claim it refers back to. 

 

 

5. Means-plus-function -- Para 6
5.1 How to rebut the MPF assumption if the claim has "means" and recites a function.
5.2 Incorporating MPF structure into spec by reference.
 

 

 

1. Dummy
   
   

 

 

1.  General §112 issues

1.1:  If a parent patent does not enable sufficiently to give CIP claims priority, can it nevertheless be used as PA against its child?

Yes.

CAFC, 1991.  Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63.  Yes. 
Where the parent application of a CIP does not enable the broad claims of the CIP, then those broad claims do not get the priority of the parent.  If the parent is published prior to filing the CIP, the parent can act as PA because the PA need not be enabling as PA but it does need to be enabling as a parent. 


1.2:  Can you mix apparatus elements with method steps in one claim?

No.

MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) -- "A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph."

CAFC, 2005  Ipxl v. Amazon, 430 F3d 1377 (1-click case)
The system of claim 2 [including an input means] wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction. 

CAFC, 2011 Technologies v AOL (2010-1002)   
The first three elements of Claim 3 were MPF and the last element was "transmitting the trellis..."  Dumb. 



Back to Top of Page


2.  Paragraph 1-- Spec Support

2.1:  Is  PTO required to make prima facie case for lack of support?   

Yes, but don't push it.

CAFC, 2006.  Jun28.2007  Hyatt v Dudas, (CAFC 2006-1171)
"This is not to say that the PTO can reject a complex claim with numerous limitations by summarily declaring that no written description support exists. Rather, section 2163.04(I) expressly instructs the examiner to specify which claim limitation is lacking adequate support in the written description. MPEP § 2163.04(I)(A) (requiring the examiner to “[i]dentify the claim limitation at issue”); see also MPEP § 2163.04(I)(B) (recommending a rejection in the form “there [does not] appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed”). These provisions 
guiding the examiner thus comport with our Alton opinion. "


Back to Top of Page


For 112 section form Hyatt
This is not to say that the PTO can reject a complex claim with numerous limitations by summarily declaring that no written description support exists. Rather, section 2163.04(I) expressly instructs the examiner to specify which claim limitation is lacking adequate support in the written description. MPEP § 2163.04(I)(A) (requiring the examiner to “[i]dentify the claim limitation at issue”); see also MPEP § 2163.04(I)(B) (recommending a rejection in the form “there [does not] appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed”). These provisions guiding the examiner thus comport with our Alton opinion. 



Back to Top of Page


4.  Paragraph 4-- Dependent Claims

4.1: If dependent does not provide further limitation to parent, is it valid?
No. Pfizer v. Ranbaxy  457 F3d 1284 (CAFC, 2006) http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/06opinions/06-1179.pdf


5.  Paragraph 6-- MPF

5.1:  Can you rebut the MPF presumption when claim has "means" and recites function. support?   
Yes.

CAFC, 2011, Technologies v. AOL.
If there is structure recited in the claim and PHOSITA would recognize that it performs the function completely, the MPF assumption is rebutted. 


5.2:  A MPF claim must have structure disclosed in the spec.  Can you get that structure by incorporation by reference
No.

CAFC, 2005.  Default Proof Credit v. Home Depot, 412 43d 1291,1301.  POS debit card distribution system that cited no structure for actually distributing the card.  Citing Atmel, 198 F3d @ 1381 [This is a case saying incorporated structure doesn't work for paragraph 2 [?].


5.3:  A MPF claim must have structure disclosed in the spec.  So must there be sufficient structure in the spec to include everything needed for the invention to work:.  

No.

CAFC, 2005.  Default Proof Credit, supra citing Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude, 296 f3d 1106 (CAFC 2002).  You only need enough structure for paragraph 6 to perform the means-for function.  

 


5.4:  Can a human being constitute a "means" structure to satisfy Para 6?   

No.

CAFC, 2005.  Default Proof Credit, supra citing In re Prater, 56 CCPA 1381, 415 F2d 1393 (CCPA, 1969)