- Background Of The Invention
- Best Mode
- Biological Material
- Board Of Appeals
- Broad Claim
- Business Method Patent
Background Of The Invention:
A section of a patent application pointing to the pertinent prior art and how the instant invention relates to the prior art.
A destruction of an action or a claim in law.
A third requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is that: The specification . . . shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Material that is capable of self-replication either directly or indirectly. Representative examples include bacteria, fungi including yeast, algae, protozoa, eukaryotic cells, cell lines, hybridomas, plasmids, viruses, plant tissue cells, lichens and seeds. Viruses, vectors, cell organelles and other non-living material existing in and reproducible from a living cell may be deposited by deposit of the host cell capable of reproducing the non-living material.
Board of Appeals:
An adverse decision of a patent examiner is subject to review by the Board of Appeals which is formed from a panel of members that includes the Commissioner of Patents, the deputy commissioner, the assistant commissioners, and examiners-in-chief. At least three members of such panel must hear each appeal. As a general rule, the Board upholds the decision of the examiner in about seventy per cent (70%) of all cases. This is roughly the same rate as all appeals in all areas of law.
The failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, commonly arises when the claims are changed after filing to either broaden or narrow the breadth of the claim limitations, or to alter a numerical range limitation or to use claim language which is not synonymous with the terminology used in the original disclosure. To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, or 365(c), each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.
Business Method Patent:
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signal Financial Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) cert denied 119 S. Ct. 851 (1999). The court ruled that patent laws were intended to protect any method, whether or not it required the aid of a computer, so long as it produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.”