Monthly Archives: January 2012

“Means For” language and 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6

Recently, an Examiner reminded me about certain language that could invoke the “means for … ” limitation in a claim. He gave me a non-exhaustive list of non-functional terms that may likewise invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, even though “means for” or “step for” is not used: a) “mechanism for … “; b) “module […]

Read More

Claims Need to be Supported by Body of Patent Application

Examiners at the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) are supposed to make sure the disclosure in the Specification matches the extent of the claims. The claims are the legally enforceable language of an issued patent. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), section 1302.01 issues a mandate to Examiners. It states: “When an application is apparently […]

Read More