What is the requirement for comparing claimed subject matter in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-10 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to effectively rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated in MPEP 716.02(e) : “An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” This requirement ensures that the comparison is made against the most relevant existing technology, providing a more accurate assessment of the invention’s non-obviousness. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Must Follow Form Paragraph 7.66 MPEP 716 Required Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Must Follow Form Paragraph 7.66 MPEP 716 Required Affidavit Must Compare Claimed Subject Matter to Closest Prior Art MPEP 716.02(e) Required Requirement for Comparing Invention with Closest Prior Art MPEP 716.02(e) Testing Less Than All Closest Prior Art Compounds Is Insufficient To Rebut Prima Facie Obviousness MPEP 716.02(e) Requirement for Full Explanation of Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 MPEP 716 Required Requirement for Full Explanation of Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 MPEP 716 Required Comparison with Closest Prior Art Must Explain Deviations MPEP 716.02(e) Required Evidence of Unexpected Results Must Compare Invention to Closest Prior Art MPEP 716.02(e) Required Office Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Obviousness MPEP 716.02(e) Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What is the significance of comparing claimed invention with closest prior art in patent applications? How should unexpected results be show...