Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
Amounts (2)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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:
And Proportions (2)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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 2100 – Patentability (2)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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 2144.05 – Obviousness Of Similar And Overlapping Ranges (2)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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 Law (2)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
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: