Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (3)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The key requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness are:
- Resolving the Graham factual inquiries
- Articulating a clear rationale for why the claimed invention would have been obvious
- Providing a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations
As stated in the MPEP: “The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.” MPEP 2143
To learn more:
MPEP 2112 – Requirements Of Rejection Based On Inherency; Burden Of Proof (1)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
MPEP 2143 – Examples Of Basic Requirements Of A Prima Facie Case Of Obviousness (1)
The key requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness are:
- Resolving the Graham factual inquiries
- Articulating a clear rationale for why the claimed invention would have been obvious
- Providing a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations
As stated in the MPEP: “The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.” MPEP 2143
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.04 – Burden On The Examiner With Regard To The Written Description Requirement (1)
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
MPEP 2200 – Citation Of Prior Art And Ex Parte Reexamination Of Patents (1)
The concepts of a “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQ) and a “prima facie case of unpatentability” are distinct in patent law, particularly in the context of reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2242:
It is not necessary that a ‘prima facie’ case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ to be present as to the claim.
Key differences include:
- SNQ: This is the threshold for initiating a reexamination. It exists when prior art raises a substantial question about the patentability of at least one claim, even if it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection.
- Prima facie case: This is a higher standard, typically used during examination, where the evidence is sufficient to establish unpatentability unless rebutted.
The MPEP notes: Thus, ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications.
This distinction allows for a broader range of issues to be considered in reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
MPEP 2242 – Criteria For Deciding Request Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 302 (1)
The concepts of a “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQ) and a “prima facie case of unpatentability” are distinct in patent law, particularly in the context of reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2242:
It is not necessary that a ‘prima facie’ case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ to be present as to the claim.
Key differences include:
- SNQ: This is the threshold for initiating a reexamination. It exists when prior art raises a substantial question about the patentability of at least one claim, even if it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection.
- Prima facie case: This is a higher standard, typically used during examination, where the evidence is sufficient to establish unpatentability unless rebutted.
The MPEP notes: Thus, ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications.
This distinction allows for a broader range of issues to be considered in reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
Patent Law (4)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The key requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness are:
- Resolving the Graham factual inquiries
- Articulating a clear rationale for why the claimed invention would have been obvious
- Providing a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations
As stated in the MPEP: “The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.” MPEP 2143
To learn more:
The concepts of a “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQ) and a “prima facie case of unpatentability” are distinct in patent law, particularly in the context of reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2242:
It is not necessary that a ‘prima facie’ case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ to be present as to the claim.
Key differences include:
- SNQ: This is the threshold for initiating a reexamination. It exists when prior art raises a substantial question about the patentability of at least one claim, even if it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection.
- Prima facie case: This is a higher standard, typically used during examination, where the evidence is sufficient to establish unpatentability unless rebutted.
The MPEP notes: Thus, ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications.
This distinction allows for a broader range of issues to be considered in reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (4)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The key requirements for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness are:
- Resolving the Graham factual inquiries
- Articulating a clear rationale for why the claimed invention would have been obvious
- Providing a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations
As stated in the MPEP: “The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.” MPEP 2143
To learn more:
The concepts of a “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQ) and a “prima facie case of unpatentability” are distinct in patent law, particularly in the context of reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2242:
It is not necessary that a ‘prima facie’ case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ to be present as to the claim.
Key differences include:
- SNQ: This is the threshold for initiating a reexamination. It exists when prior art raises a substantial question about the patentability of at least one claim, even if it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a rejection.
- Prima facie case: This is a higher standard, typically used during examination, where the evidence is sufficient to establish unpatentability unless rebutted.
The MPEP notes: Thus, ‘a substantial new question of patentability’ as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications.
This distinction allows for a broader range of issues to be considered in reexamination proceedings.
To learn more: