Abstract

Anticipation

A legal standard for rejecting a patent claim. If every element of a claim was already disclosed in a single prior art reference — in a patent, article, or product — the claim is "anticipated" and cannot be patented. Anticipation requires a single source to contain every element; if you need two sources, it's an obviousness argument, not anticipation.

Appeal

A request to have a patent examiner's rejection reviewed by a higher authority. After receiving multiple rejections, an applicant can appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the USPTO, and from there to federal court. Appeals are expensive and slow, but sometimes necessary when an examiner applies the law incorrectly.

Art unit

A group of patent examiners at the USPTO who specialize in a particular technology area. Each application is assigned to the art unit whose examiners are trained in the relevant field. The art unit assignment matters because examiner expertise — and rejection rates — vary significantly across technology areas.

Assignee

The legal owner of a patent, who may or may not be the inventor. When an employee invents something in the course of their employment, most companies require inventors to assign patent rights to the employer. The assignee appears on the patent document and has the right to license or enforce the patent.

Basis for rejection

The specific legal grounds a patent examiner cites when refusing to allow a claim. Common bases include lack of novelty (35 USC § 102), obviousness (35 USC § 103), failure to fully describe the invention (35 USC § 112), and unpatentable subject matter (35 USC § 101). An office action will state the basis for each rejection, and applicants must address each one in their response.

Broadest reasonable interpretation

A standard the USPTO uses during examination to interpret claim language. Examiners give claim terms the broadest meaning a person skilled in the art would reasonably understand from the specification — not the narrowest. This is intentional: if a claim is too broad it should fail during examination, not slip through and later cause harm. Applicants can argue against an overly broad interpretation by pointing to the specification or adding clarifying language.