When should restriction not be required despite distinct inventions?

Restriction should not be required when there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103. The MPEP 803 cites a specific case:

“If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm’r Pat. 1978).”

This guideline prevents unnecessary restriction when the applicant has already acknowledged that the inventions are not patentably distinct. In such cases, examining all claims together would be more efficient and appropriate.

To learn more:

• restriction requirement
• obvious inventions
• 35 U.S.C. 103
• express admission
• patent examination