What are the parts of a patent application?

Patent, Patent Prosecution

Under 37 CFR 1.77 the specification should include the following sections, in order:

  1. Title of the invention.
  2. Cross-reference to related applications.
  3. Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development. 
  4. The names of the parties to a joint research agreement.
  5. Reference to a “Sequence Listing,” a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on a compact disc and an incorporation-by-reference.
  6. Background of the invention.
  7. Brief summary of the invention.
  8. Brief description of the several views of the drawing.
  9. Detailed description of the invention.
  10. A claim or claims.
  11. Abstract of the disclosure.
  12. “Sequence Listing,” if on paper (see §§ 1.821 through 1.825).

These sections may be identified in the application by section headings in uppercase but without underlining or bold type. 

As you develop your style of patent drafting, it is useful to occasionally look back to the rules of practice to ensure that you are still following them.

Links:

Do you have comments on the recent trend to eliminate various sections — such as the summary of the invention.

Hide comments

3 thoughts on “What are the parts of a patent application?”

  2. 2

    I think that keeping all these parts is very important. One should look at US Patent 6,212,777 to Gillette that has no parts. In the Gillette v Energizer Holdings decided on April 29 CAFC took the very strange position to read the term “a plurality” into the claims. By doing so CAFC decided that the “three blades” razor invented by Gillette is equivalent to the four blades product (Quattro) made by Energizer. The CAFC barons need to study 37 CFR 1.77 and see that “a plurality” listed in the ‘777 belongs to the field of the invention and the prior art. The Gillette decision (see also the strange application of the Markush group) is a landmark of patent law incompetence, I call it the OJ patent decision.

  3. 1

    “As you develop your style of patent drafting, it is useful to occasionally look back to the rules of practice to ensure that you are still following them.”

    Good point (laughing). I’d say patently obvious (snicker) but it isn’t a given… is it?

Comments are closed.