Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/fr112p6.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:59:20+00:00

Document:
they are exempt from notice and comments rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
mail at magdalen.greenlief@uspto.gov or ray.chen@uspto.gov.
Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C.
with modifications as suggested by some of the commentors noted below.
to be rules or regulations (or their equivalent) issued under 35 U.S.C.
statement be made as to the intent of the Office.
are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
means whether one uses that word or not.
limitation does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6. See Rodime PLC v.
guidelines are consistent with the statute and controlling precedent.
Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1463, 45 USPQ2d 1545, 1550 (Fed. Cir.
and Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 849-50, 50 USPQ2d 1225, 1233-34 (Fed.
does not invoke a presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6 applies.
envelope pocket was not equivalent to sealing it outside the pocket).
the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
is not used, the claim limitation should be treated under 35 U.S.C.
v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213-14, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1016-17 (Fed.
were construed as means-plus-function limitations invoking 35 U.S.C.
choose to use in a claim.
which must be met before a claim limitation is treated under 35 U.S.C.
applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C.
sufficient structural limitations for performing those functions).
or acts for achieving the claimed function,'' citing Seal-Flex, Inc. v.
Athletic Track and Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 50 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed.
1311, 48 USPQ2d 1099 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
without the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
making a second or subsequent action final (see MPEP 706.07(a)).
Appeals and Interferences pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 134.
applicants may agree with or argue against the examiner's position.
not being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
there is a danger of unfairly limiting the scope of the claims.
Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997); York Prods., Inc.
equivalent, the examiner has met the prima facie case of equivalence.
order to make out a prima facie case of equivalence.
corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Al-Site Corp. v.
VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.
Corp. v. United States, 553 F.2d 69, 83, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl.
element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.
F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
function language under the rubric of `reasonable interpretation''').
to the Supreme Court or to Congress to obtain an amendment to 35 U.S.C.
Circuit's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
function language is that statutorily mandated in (35 U.S.C. 112, para.
implementing changes in examination practice in response to Donaldson.
See Means or Step Plus Function Limitation Under 35 U.S.C. 112, para.
rulemaking and hence do not have the force and effect of law.
U.S.C. 112, para. 6 based upon a clear and simple set of criteria.
Necessary To Support a Claim Limitation Which Invokes 35 U.S.C.
distinctly claim the invention as required by [35 U.S.C. 112, para.
function recited in a means-(or step-) plus-function limitation.
function recited in the means-(or step-) plus-function limitation.
1. See 1994 Guidelines at 59.
limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6.
the term ``means'' to a specific function).
recites sufficient acts for performing the specified function'').
moving function removes this element from the purview of 35 U.S.C.
is deleted from the claim limitation. See also supra note 1.
function, not their mechanical structure).
7. See 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc.
v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir.
Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884-85 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C.
481 F.2d at 1366, 178 USPQ at 493.
935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
not simply state `computer' or some equivalent phrase.)'').
F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
F.2d 69, 83, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977).
1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Valmont Indus. v.
Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed.
19. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.
of his invention) (citation omitted). Cf. Hybritech Inc. v.
what is well known in the art'').
1542, 1549, 219 USPQ 189, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

References: v.

v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v.