• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Embodiments, descriptions, and software

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

S

Stuman

Guest
In the book I have on submitting a patent application, it gives as its example in "Description of Invention" a piece by piece description of a mechanical device. Does one simply describe their software program in this part of the patent application (as opposed to a mechanical invention)-- like data storage mechanism, algorithym, graphical user interface?

Also, in terms of the main embodiment-- do we simply give what we envision as the main use of our sofware idea? Do you get really specific (ie, on a doctor's web site) or do you try and keep it as general as possible?
 
Last edited:


divgradcurl

Senior Member
Software inventions have some specific requirements that differ from other utility patents. You can look up the rules online in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html. I think the specific rules for Software Patents should be in section 600.

Actually, try section 608.05(a): http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_05_a.htm#608.05(a)

The main embodiment is supposed to be the "best mode" of the invention, that it, the optimum version of the invention. If the software be used in any type of office, then you would claim "any type of office." But, if the software is optimized for a doctor's office, then the best mode would by "a doctor's office." You wouldn't have to specify a particular doctor's office, however:

"608.01(h) Mode of Operation of Invention

The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his or her invention must be set forth in the description. See 35 U.S.C. 112. There is no statutory requirement for the disclosure of a specific example. A patent specification is not intended nor required to be a production specification. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 768, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962). The absence of a specific working example is not necessarily evidence that the best mode has not been disclosed, nor is the presence of one evidence that it has. In re Honn, 364 F.2d 454, 150 USPQ 652 (CCPA 1966). In determining the adequacy of a best mode disclosure, only evidence of concealment (accidental or intentional) is to be considered. That evidence must tend to show that the quality of an applicant's best mode disclosure is so poor as to effectively result in concealment. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Sherwood, 613 F.2d 809, 204 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1980).

The question of whether an inventor has or has not disclosed what he or she feels is his or her best mode is a question separate and distinct from the question of sufficiency of the disclosure. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 708, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962). See 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.71(b).

If the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, such defect cannot be cured by submitting an amendment seeking to put into the specification something required to be there when the application was originally filed. In re Hay, 534 F.2d 917, 189 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1976). Any proposed amendment of this type should be treated as new matter.

Patents have been held invalid in cases where the patentee did not disclose the best mode known to him or her. See Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Indus. Corp., 913 F.2d 923. 16 USPQ2d 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Dana Corp. v. IPC Ltd. Partnership, 860 F.2d 415, 8 USPQ2d 1692 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 821 F.2d 1524, 3 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

For completeness, see MPEP § 608.01(p) and § 2165 to § 2165.04."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_01_h.htm#sect608.01h
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top