What is the relationship between prior art teachings and reasonable expectation of success?
The relationship between prior art teachings and reasonable expectation of success is crucial in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143.02, the teachings of the prior art and their specificity play a significant role in determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying references.
The MPEP provides guidance on this relationship:
“Conclusive proof of efficacy is not required to show a reasonable expectation of success. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1333, 128 USPQ2d 1001, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“This court has long rejected a requirement of ‘[c]onclusive proof of efficacy’ for obviousness.” (citing to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 748 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014); PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reasoning that “the expectation of success need only be reasonable, not absolute”)).
This means that while the prior art must provide a foundation for a reasonable expectation of success, it doesn’t need to guarantee success. The more specific and relevant the teachings in the prior art, the stronger the case for a reasonable expectation of success. However, if the prior art teachings are vague or teach away from the claimed invention, it may be harder to establish a reasonable expectation of success.
To learn more: