About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | In Defense of the Federal Circuit: A Response to Judge Wood »

October 07, 2013


""binds to an antigen at residues X, Y, and Z of the antigen," and whether these claims are patentable even though they provide no structural information about the claimed antibodies. "

If you actually show the structure in the spec, and show that you have good WD by either showing a number of embodiments or telling us how they're all related structurally to perform that functionality then I don't think you'll run into any problems. Of course, if you don't, then you probably will, since, unlike the software "arts" these claims are involved in the useful arts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31