Claim

Cross-referenced

Infringement

The unauthorized making, using, selling, or importing of a product or process that falls within the scope of a valid patent's claims. Infringement is determined by comparing each element of a patent claim to the accused product or process. If every element is present — literally or under the doctrine of equivalents — infringement exists.

Cross-referenced

Specification

The written description portion of a patent application — everything except the claims. The specification must describe the invention in enough detail that someone skilled in the field could make and use it. It typically includes background of the invention, a summary, a description of the drawings, and a detailed description of at least one embodiment. Courts use the specification to interpret what claim terms mean.

Cross-referenced

Abstract

A brief summary (300 words or fewer) that appears at the top of every patent. The abstract describes what the invention does in general terms. Legally, it has almost no weight — courts use the claims to determine what a patent covers, not the abstract. The abstract is useful mainly for quickly scanning patents during a prior art search.

Cross-referenced

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.

Cross-referenced

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.

Cross-referenced

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.