MPEP Section 2216, Substantial New Question of Patentability
Executive summary:
This document contains one section of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the "M.P.E.P."), Eighth Edition, Fifth Revision (August 2006). This page was last updated in July 2007. You may return to the section index to find a particular section. Alternatively, you may search the MPEP use the search box that appears on the bottom of every page of BitLaw--be sure to restrict your search to the MPEP in the pop-up list.
For more information on patent law, please see the Patent Section of BitLaw. For patent services, see the Beck & Tysver pages.
Previous Section (§2215) | Next Section (§2217)
2216 Substantial New Question of Patentability
Under 35 U.S.C. 304, the Office must determine whether "a substantial new question of patentability" affecting any claim of the patent has been raised. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(1) requires that a request for ex parte reexamination include "a statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications." If such a new question is found, an order for ex parte reexamination of the patent is issued. It is therefore important that the request clearly set forth in detail what the requester considers the "substantial new question of patentability" to be in view of prior patents and printed publications. The request should point out how any questions of patentability raised are substantially different from those raised in the previous examination of the patent before the Office. ** See * MPEP § 2242.
Questions relating to grounds of rejection other than those based on prior art patents or printed publications should not be included in the request and will not be considered by the examiner if included. Examples of such questions that will not be considered are public use, on sale, and fraud.
Affidavits or declarations >or other written evidence< which explain the contents or pertinent dates of prior art patents or printed publications in more detail may be considered in reexamination. See MPEP § 2258.
© 1996-2007 Daniel A. Tysver
(Beck & Tysver) All Rights Reserved.
IMPORTANT: Please review the
legal disclaimer and feedback page