(a) The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible. Characters that cannot be captured and recorded in the Office's automated information systems may not be reflected in the Office's records in such systems or in documents created by the Office. Unless the title is supplied in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the title of the invention should appear as a heading on the first page of the specification.
(b) A brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure.” The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
[65 FR 54667, Sept. 8, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 57054, Sept. 20, 2000; 68 FR 38628, June 30, 2003; 78 FR 62402, Oct. 21, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Struthers Pat. Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc., 558 F. Supp. 747 (D.N.J. 1981).
“In addition, the examiner required that an abstract be supplied pursuant to Rule 72(b) ( 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 (b)). A response filed by Mr.”
Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D. Del. 2002).
“Defendants further contend that even though the abstract to the specification uses the word “or” instead of “and”, the abstract, according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 , cannot be relied upon when interpreting claims.”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 330 F. Supp. 2d 865 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
“See 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 (2004). *880 showing a fuel filter is merely one embodiment "made pursuant to the teachings of the present invention.”
In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1975).
“§ 112 , citing Rule 72(b), 37 CFR 1.72(b). 2 However, Rule 72(b) states that the purpose of the abstract is to enable the “Patent Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure [emphasis supplied].”
Diaz v. Matal, 268 F. Supp. 3d 267 (D. Mass. 2017).
“37 C.F.R. § 1.72 (b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.”
Biovail Labs. Int'l SRL v. Impax Labs., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 501 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
“2005) (hereinafter "MPEP”) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 ). 12 . "A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the invention, should precede the detailed description.”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc., 630 F.2d 120 (3rd Cir. 1980).
“Premo contends that disclosure of the usefulness of cephalexin as an oral antibiotic for the first time in the abstract violated 37 C.F.R. § 1.72 (b) (1979), which states in relevant part: The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Patent and Trademark Office and the public…”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b) — 1 case
In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1975).
“§ 112 , citing Rule 72(b), 37 CFR 1.72(b). 2 However, Rule 72(b) states that the purpose of the abstract is to enable the “Patent Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure [emphasis supplied].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.