Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[patentdog]

Do patent examples need to be actual experiments with measured results?  Or can they be theoretical based on modeling?

[khazzah]

Do patent examples need to be actual experiments with measured results?  Or can they be theoretical based on modeling?

Not sure what you mean by "patent examples". Patent applications aren't required to include examples. And an example may or may not be sufficient.

A patent application is required to a) enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention and b) to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the claimed invention. These requirements are known as "enablement" and "written description", respectively.

As a simple example, a patent application that claims a transporter a la Star Trek fails both tests, since no one has figured out how to build a transporter.

What sort of information is required to fulfill the enablement and written description requirement depends on the area of technology. More esoteric areas probably require more explanation, and might require experimental results.

[JimIvey]

I've heard that some inventions in life sciences requires some sort of experiment data, such as clinical or pre-clinical trials.  That's beyond my experience so I can't say much about that.

Generally, in other technologies, actual experiments and actual experimental resulting data are not required.  In some circumstances, such data can be useful.  But, generally speaking, the requirements for description in a patent application are as described by Karen.

Regards.

[George White]

One important side note is that the patent application should not talk about a "theoretical" experiment in a way that make it sound like an actual experiment.

--George

[klaviernista]

Do patent examples need to be actual experiments with measured results?  Or can they be theoretical based on modeling?

Calculated/modeled data can be used in a patent specification.  Just make sure, as George indicated, to identify it as such.  There have been cases where patents have been found invalid when a patentee passed off calculated data as real.

As Jim mentioned, there are certain areas in the life science where real data is often required by the PTO to meet the enablement and written description requirements.  E.g., if an applicant claims a method of treating a disease that has no presently known method of treatment (e.g., alzheimers), the PTO will usually reject those claims under 112(1) unless the applicant provides supporting data in the specification. And whether or not data in the specification is sufficient may very well come down to how "treatment" is defined in the specification. 

[TaiwanIP]

Do patent examples need to be actual experiments with measured results?  Or can they be theoretical based on modeling?

This is repeating what's already been stated by others but with a quote and link to make the record complete for anyone else who might have the same question in the future. According to MPEP 2164.02, examples can be phrophetic and do not need to be working examples. Here's a quote from 2164.02:

Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be "working" or "prophetic." A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.

And here's the link:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2164_02.htm