This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Information for "MPEP 2184"
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Basic information
Display title | MPEP 2184 |
Default sort key | MPEP 2184 |
Page length (in bytes) | 12,988 |
Page ID | 1810 |
Page content language | en - English |
Page content model | wikitext |
Indexing by robots | Allowed |
Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
Counted as a content page | Yes |
Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
Page protection
Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
Edit history
Page creator | Lost Student (talk | contribs) |
Date of page creation | 01:15, May 29, 2007 |
Latest editor | Lost Student (talk | contribs) |
Date of latest edit | 22:51, May 31, 2020 |
Total number of edits | 2 |
Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
Transcluded templates (2) | Templates used on this page:
|
Page transcluded on (1) | Template used on this page: |
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description )This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The specification need not describe the equivalents of the structures, material, or acts corresponding to the means-(or step-) plus-function claim element. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149-50, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (the meaning of equivalents is well understood in patent law, and an applicant need not describe in his specification the full range of equivalents of his invention) (citation omitted). Cf. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). Where, however, the specification is silent as to what constitutes equivalents and the examiner has made out a prima faciecase of equivalence, the burden is placed upon the applicant to show that a prior art element which performs the claimed function is not an equivalent of the structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification. See In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542, 1549, 219 USPQ 189, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1983). |