What is the difference between anticipation and obviousness in patent rejections?
Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based)BlueIron Update: 2024-09-10
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.
Anticipation and obviousness are two distinct grounds for rejecting a patent application based on prior art:
- Anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102): This occurs when a single prior art reference discloses all elements of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2131, “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
- Obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103): This rejection is made when the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Multiple references may be combined to render the invention obvious. As per MPEP 2141, “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Understanding these differences is crucial for both patent examiners and applicants in the patent prosecution process.