Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Amounts (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
And Apparatus Claims (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more:
And Proportions (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more:
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
MPEP 2112.01 – Composition (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more:
MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness Of Similar And Overlapping Ranges (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more:
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more:
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for overlapping ranges in several ways, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05:
- Showing criticality of the range: The applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, generally by showing unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
- Teaching away: The applicant can show that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
- Lack of result-effective variable: The applicant may argue that the claimed variable was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art.
- Broad prior art range: The applicant can establish that the prior art disclosure of the variable is within a range so broad, in light of the dissimilar characteristics of its members, as to not invite optimization.
The MPEP states: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To learn more:
Product (1)
An applicant can rebut a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product claims by providing evidence that demonstrates the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. This is explained in MPEP 2112.01(I):
“Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
This means that even if the structure or composition appears identical, if the applicant can provide evidence that the prior art product does not have the same properties or functions as the claimed product, they may be able to overcome the rejection.
To learn more: