What is the difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The key difference between rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 lies in how the prior art is applied:

• 35 U.S.C. 102 (Anticipation): The claim is anticipated by the reference. As stated in the MPEP, “for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either explicitly or impliedly. Any feature not directly taught must be inherently present.” No question of obviousness is involved.
• 35 U.S.C. 103 (Obviousness): The reference teachings must be modified to meet the claims. The MPEP states, “in a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference teachings must somehow be modified in order to meet the claims. The modification must be one which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” (for AIA applications).

For detailed guidance on patentability determinations under these sections, refer to MPEP §§ 2131 – 2146 and MPEP §§ 2150 – 2159.04.