MPEP § 2144.07 — Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose (Annotated Rules)

§2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose

USPTO MPEP version: BlueIron's Update: 2026-01-10

This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2144.07, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.

Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose

This section addresses Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose. Contains: 3 statements.

Key Rules

Topic

Obviousness

2 rules
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-2144-07-fa8d650eae4b5ea0b975701f]
Selection of Known Material Based on Suitability Supports Obviousness Determination
Note:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in legal cases.

The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)

Jump to MPEP SourceObviousnessPrima Facie Case of Obviousness
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-2144-07-ac9003fa3f883f073b1c4f25]
Suitable Solvent for Ink Must Be Based on Intended Use
Note:
The selection of a solvent based on its suitability for the intended purpose supports an obviousness determination in printing ink formulations.

The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)

Jump to MPEP SourceObviousnessTeaching, Suggestion, Motivation (TSM)Prima Facie Case of Obviousness
Topic

35 U.S.C. 103 – Obviousness

1 rules
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-2144-07-acc1999093a8dbdf74315667]
Selection of Known Material for Intended Purpose Is Obvious
Note:
The selection of a known material to make an item of the same type is considered obvious if it serves the intended purpose.

See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).

Citations

Primary topicCitation
ObviousnessCarroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
35 U.S.C. 103 – ObviousnessIn re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
35 U.S.C. 103 – ObviousnessRyco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP

This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.

BlueIron Last Updated: 2026-01-10