How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for chemical compounds?
How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for chemical compounds?
The USPTO has specific guidelines for evaluating allegations of unexpected results, particularly for chemical compounds. According to MPEP 716.02(a)(II):
“Evidence that a compound possesses unexpected properties is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness if the prior art suggested that the compound would possess the properties.”
This means that if the prior art suggests that a chemical compound would have certain properties, showing that it actually has those properties is not considered unexpected. To be considered unexpected, the results must be truly surprising in light of what was known in the prior art.
Additionally, the USPTO requires that the unexpected results be commensurate in scope with the claims. This means that the evidence of unexpected results should apply to the full range of what is being claimed, not just a narrow subset.
To learn more: