patent specification drafting series: background section, by arun narasani
Post on 02-Nov-2014
10 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Patent Spec Training SeriesIntroduction and Writing background section
ipMetrix
Application requirement
India – Section 7 (chapter 3) US – 35 USC 111
Contents of the specification – US Title of the invention Cross-reference to related applications Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development The names of the parties to a joint research agreement Reference to a "Sequence Listing" Background of the invention
(1) Field of the invention (2) Description of related art including information disclosed under IDS
Brief summary of the invention Brief description of the several views of the drawing Detailed description of the invention Claim(s) (commencing on a separate sheet) Abstract of the Disclosure (commencing on a separate sheet) Sequence Listing
ipMetrix
Contents of the specification – India
Title Field of the Invention and use of Invention Prior Art and problem to be solved Objects of the Invention Summary of the Invention Detailed Description of Invention Drawings Abstract Claims
ipMetrix
Background requirements – US
“The specification must set forth the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in such manner as to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old.” (37 CFR 1.71)
But, no real guideline on what should be or should not be part of the background section
ipMetrix
Background requirements – India
“This part should indicate the status of the technology in the field of invention with reference to developments in the field, patents and pending patent applications in the specific art.”
“When the invention relates to an improvement on an existing product or process, a short statement of the closest prior art known to the applicant shall also be given.”
“However, the description should fully and particularly describe the invention, by clearly distinguishing it from such a closest prior art, known to the applicant.”
ipMetrix
Background requirements – India
Objects of the invention “The purpose of this part is to clearly bring out
the necessity of the invention. It shall clearly mention the technical problems associated with the existing technology and the solution for that, bringing out the obvious differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.”
ipMetrix
Relevant Case Law
KSR v. Teleflex
Facts Teleflex, Inc. sued KSR International, claiming that one of
KSR's products infringed Teleflex's patent[1] on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control. KSR argued that the combination of the two elements was obvious, and the claim was therefore not patentable.
The district court ruled in favor of KSR The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the
decision. The Supreme Court reversed the judgement unanimously
ipMetrix
ipMetrix
KSR v. Teleflex
Impact on Background “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.”
ipMetrix
Rule 1
Keep description of prior art simple Avoid characterizing any specific prior art When talking about prior art in general, avoid
suggesting that the invention is based on known elements and known functions of such elements
When not possible, need to demonstrate unpredictability of the result in the specification
Avoid suggesting that the problem is well known in the prior art
ipMetrix
In re O’Farrell
Facts Examiner rejects the claims for “A method for
producing a predetermined protein in a stable form in a transformed host species of bacteria”
BPAI affirms patent examiner's final rejection of patent application entitled "Method and Hybrid Vector for Regulating Translation of Heterologous DNA in Bacteria.“
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms the decision.
ipMetrix
In re O’Farrell
Impact on Background Obvious-to-try does not mean obviousness Explores the circumstances where it is obvious-to-try but the
invention is non-obvious “In some cases, what would have been "obvious to try" would
have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.”
“In others, what was "obvious to try" was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.”
ipMetrix
Rule 2
Do not suggest that the invention is obvious-to-try Avoid characterizing prior arts that provide
guidance in the direction of invention For improvement patents, ensure that one of the
following is established Invention involves choosing a particular option out
of a large set of options that was not suggested by the prior art; and/or
Improvement involves exploration of new technology that was not suggested by the prior art
ipMetrix
Pfizer v. Apotex
Facts Norvasc is Pfizer's patented blockbuster drug for
treating hypertension and angina The trial court upholds Pfizer's patent and issues
an injunction stopping Apotex from making a generic version
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidates Pfizer's patent, finding it obvious.
ipMetrix
Pfizer v. Apotex
Impact on Background “.. prior art provided not only the means of
creating acid addition salts but also predicted the results, which Pfizer merely had to verify through routine testing.”
ipMetrix
Rule 3
Do not suggest that the invention is based on routine experimentation based on known elements and known functions (conditions) Avoid characterization of specific prior art that
suggests the elements or predicts the results even in general
When not possible, need to establish unpredictability of results
Please note that obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. (In re O’Farrell)
ipMetrix
Some pet peeves
Lack of flow of logic from one paragraph to another
Informal language Inappropriate sentence formation Inappropriate use of articles
ipMetrix
Example
Invention: Method of organizing data in an enterprise for
ease of access Preferred embodiment uses Internet as a means
Background Starts with how Internet has impacted lives How organizations cannot access data without
Internet Establishing a need for easy access of data using
Internet
ipMetrix
Example
“Also, rate limiting of the network traffic occurs at the debug logging server level. The logging server has to rate-limit the logs generated by the data path, which will continuously keep on generating logs, hence adversely affecting the performance of the router/switch.”
The logging server was never introduced before There is no specific data
path that you can refer to
Informal languageComplex sentence and no
clear articulation
ipMetrix
Summary
Avoid content in background that hints that the invention at hand is based on
Known functions of known elements leading to predictable results
Or is based on Routine finding/experimentation
Or is Obvious-to-try
Or Solves a known problem with generally known elements
in the prior art
ipMetrix
Summary
Understand the problem that the invention is trying to solve Not enough to understand the preferred embodiment Avoid talking about specific embodiment details in
background; focus on the larger problem
Follow basic writing rules Plan for the flow of logic before writing Ensure that there is flow of logic from one para to another Follow basic grammar rules and usage of proper articles
ipMetrix
Conclusion
Keep background very simple Establish need for invention in a generic
sense without characterizing any specific prior art
Questions?
Contact:Arun NarasaniFounder, ipMetrixarun@ipmetrix.com
top related