What is the “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine in patent law?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29 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. The “Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose” doctrine is a legal principle in patent law that relates to the obviousness of an invention. It states that selecting a known material or component for its recognized suitability for an intended use can support a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated in MPEP 2144.07 : “ The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination ” in the landmark case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. This doctrine suggests that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a material or component as suitable for a particular purpose, using that material or component for that purpose may be considered obvious and thus potentially unpatentable. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Selection of Known Material Based on Suitability Supports Obviousness Determination MPEP 2144.07 Selection of Known Material for Intended Purpose Is Obvious MPEP 2144.07 Suitable Solvent for Ink Must Be Based on Intended Use MPEP 2144.07 Consistent Application of Obviousness Law MPEP 2144 Avoid Treating Obviousness Rationales as Per Se Rules MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Scientific Theory and Legal Precedent MPEP 2144 Office Personnel May Use Legal Precedent for Obviousness Rejections MPEP 2144 Permitted Rationales Must Be Explained for Obviousness Rejection MPEP 2144 Required Caveat for Obviousness Analysis MPEP 2144 Explain Principle to Establish Obviousness MPEP 2144 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How does the Art Recognized Suitability doctrine apply to different fields of invention? What other cases ...