How does the MPEP define ‘unexpected results’ in the context of patent applications?

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidance on what constitutes ‘unexpected results’ in the context of patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(a), unexpected results can be demonstrated in several ways:

1. Greater than expected results: A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness … of the claims at issue.
2. Superiority in a shared property: Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties … can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
3. Presence of an unexpected property: Presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence of nonobviousness.
4. Absence of an expected property: Absence of property which a claimed invention would have been expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art is evidence of unobviousness.

It’s important to note that for results to be considered ‘unexpected,’ they must be:

• Truly surprising or unforeseen based on the prior art
• Significant and practically advantageous
• Commensurate in scope with the claimed invention

The MPEP emphasizes that applicants must show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.

To learn more:

• unexpected results
• nonobviousness
• patent examination
• MPEP guidelines
• patent law