How do changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts affect patentability?

Changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts are generally considered obvious modifications unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes often fall under routine engineering choices.

Portability: “Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” (In re Lindberg)

Integration: “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (In re Larson)

Separation: “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.” (In re Dulberg)

Key considerations:

  • Do the changes result in new or unexpected functionality?
  • Is there a recognized problem in the art that these changes solve?
  • Would the modifications be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?

Inventors should focus on demonstrating unique benefits or unexpected results arising from these changes to strengthen their case for patentability.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2144.04 - Legal Precedent As Source Of Supporting Rationale, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Integration, MPEP 2144.04, patentability, Portability, Separation Of Parts