About: Written description   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbkwik.org associated with source dataset(s)

The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112 ensures that the inventor actually has invented what the patent application claims; the inventor must describe the invention sufficiently to show that he or she is in possession of the invention. The written description requirement derives in part from considerations of patent breadth. By requiring patent applicants to provide a description sufficient to show that they are in possession of the invention, the requirement protects against overbroad claim amendments. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has described one "policy-based rationale" for the description requirement as follows:

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Written description
rdfs:comment
  • The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112 ensures that the inventor actually has invented what the patent application claims; the inventor must describe the invention sufficiently to show that he or she is in possession of the invention. The written description requirement derives in part from considerations of patent breadth. By requiring patent applicants to provide a description sufficient to show that they are in possession of the invention, the requirement protects against overbroad claim amendments. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has described one "policy-based rationale" for the description requirement as follows:
dcterms:subject
dbkwik:itlaw/prope...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112 ensures that the inventor actually has invented what the patent application claims; the inventor must describe the invention sufficiently to show that he or she is in possession of the invention. The written description requirement derives in part from considerations of patent breadth. By requiring patent applicants to provide a description sufficient to show that they are in possession of the invention, the requirement protects against overbroad claim amendments. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has described one "policy-based rationale" for the description requirement as follows: The written description requirement’s roots thus trace, at least in part, from concern with potential competitive harms from after-the-fact "overreaching" beyond an applicant's actual invention. Whether a specification sufficiently supports a patent's claims under Section 112 is assessed through the eyes of the hypothetical "person having ordinary skill in the art," or PHOSITA. What the PHOSITA is likely to understand or find demonstrated is a reasonable proxy for what third parties are likely to perceive.
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software