BASICS: “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(2/b). “Where it would be apparent to one of skill in the art, based on the specification, that the invention set forth in a claim is not what the patentee regarded as his invention, we must hold that claim invalid under § 112, paragraph 2.” Allen (Fed. Cir. 08/01/02) (claim invalid where recites structure contrary to that described in Spec., even though mistake in claim was obvious); Juxtacomm-Texas (Fed. Cir. 09/30/13) (non-precedential) (aff’g invalidity based on trial court’s op., citing Allen). Applicant’s subjective intent is not measure of what application regarded as the invention; rather, it’s an objective reading of the application’s disclosure. Solomon (Fed. Cir. 06/30/00). This is not part of Sec. 120 effective-filing date requirement.
Patent Defenses is a research tool maintained by Klarquist since 2004. Visit klarquist.com to learn more about us.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.