How does the ‘area of technology’ affect unexpected results in patent applications?

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.

The ‘area of technology’ plays a significant role in determining whether unexpected results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. According to MPEP 716.02(d):

Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’

This means that in certain technological areas, a narrow showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to support broader claims. For example:

• In the pharmaceutical field, a narrow species may be sufficient to support a genus claim.
• In the mechanical arts, a specific example might not support broad claims.

Patent examiners and applicants should consider the specific technological context when evaluating unexpected results.