Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
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.
To learn more:
What is the significance of In re Leshin in MPEP 2144.07?
The case In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) is cited in MPEP 2144.07 as an important precedent. The section states:
“Mere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, was held to be nonpatentable.”
This case reinforces the principle that selecting a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is generally not patentable. It demonstrates that even when an inventor chooses a specific type of plastic for a container, if that plastic was known and suitable for such use before the invention, the selection alone is not enough to establish patentability. This case helps patent examiners and practitioners understand how to apply the concept of “art recognized suitability” in evaluating the obviousness of material choices in inventions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2144.07 – Art Recognized Suitability For An Intended Purpose (2)
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.
To learn more:
What is the significance of In re Leshin in MPEP 2144.07?
The case In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) is cited in MPEP 2144.07 as an important precedent. The section states:
“Mere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, was held to be nonpatentable.”
This case reinforces the principle that selecting a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is generally not patentable. It demonstrates that even when an inventor chooses a specific type of plastic for a container, if that plastic was known and suitable for such use before the invention, the selection alone is not enough to establish patentability. This case helps patent examiners and practitioners understand how to apply the concept of “art recognized suitability” in evaluating the obviousness of material choices in inventions.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
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.
To learn more:
What is the significance of In re Leshin in MPEP 2144.07?
The case In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) is cited in MPEP 2144.07 as an important precedent. The section states:
“Mere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, was held to be nonpatentable.”
This case reinforces the principle that selecting a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is generally not patentable. It demonstrates that even when an inventor chooses a specific type of plastic for a container, if that plastic was known and suitable for such use before the invention, the selection alone is not enough to establish patentability. This case helps patent examiners and practitioners understand how to apply the concept of “art recognized suitability” in evaluating the obviousness of material choices in inventions.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
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.
To learn more:
What is the significance of In re Leshin in MPEP 2144.07?
The case In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) is cited in MPEP 2144.07 as an important precedent. The section states:
“Mere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, was held to be nonpatentable.”
This case reinforces the principle that selecting a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is generally not patentable. It demonstrates that even when an inventor chooses a specific type of plastic for a container, if that plastic was known and suitable for such use before the invention, the selection alone is not enough to establish patentability. This case helps patent examiners and practitioners understand how to apply the concept of “art recognized suitability” in evaluating the obviousness of material choices in inventions.
To learn more: