What is the relevance of “teaching away” in patent examination?
“Teaching away” is an important concept in patent examination, particularly when assessing obviousness. The MPEP 2141.02 discusses this concept in the context of considering prior art: “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention.” When a prior art reference…
Read MoreWhat is the ‘teaching away’ doctrine in patent law?
The ‘teaching away’ doctrine is an important concept in patent law related to obviousness rejections. A prior art reference is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention if it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. However, as MPEP 2145 explains: “A prior art reference that ‘teaches away’ from the claimed invention is…
Read MoreHow does the “teaching away” concept affect obviousness rejections?
How does the “teaching away” concept affect obviousness rejections? The concept of “teaching away” can significantly impact obviousness rejections in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143.01: “A prior art reference that ‘teaches away’ from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness; however, ‘the nature of the teaching is highly…
Read MoreHow does the Tarczy-Hornoch case relate to the “Mere Function of Machine” rule?
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v): “In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which…
Read MoreAre all synthetic or artificial products automatically patent-eligible?
No, synthetic or artificial products are not automatically patent-eligible. The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) clarifies this point: “Thus, a synthetic, artificial, or non-naturally occurring product such as a cloned organism or a human-made hybrid plant is not automatically eligible because it was created by human ingenuity or intervention.” Key points to understand: The mere fact that…
Read MoreHow does the suppression and concealment doctrine affect inventorship in patent law?
The suppression and concealment doctrine can significantly impact inventorship in patent law. According to the MPEP: “The result of applying the suppression and concealment doctrine is that the inventor who did not conceal (but was the de facto last inventor) is treated legally as the first to invent, while the de facto first inventor who…
Read MoreCan suppression or concealment be attributed to someone other than the inventor?
Yes, suppression or concealment can be attributed to parties other than the inventor, such as an employer or assignee. The MPEP states: “Suppression or concealment need not be attributed to the inventor.” For example, if an employer delays filing a patent application for an unreasonably long time, this could potentially lead to a finding of…
Read MoreHow does the level of supervision affect public use in patent law?
The level of supervision during experimental use can significantly impact whether an activity is considered public use under patent law. According to MPEP 2133.03(e)(5): “The degree of supervision and control over the invention required of the inventor to establish experimental use is generally high.” This means that inventors must maintain substantial control over their invention…
Read MoreWhat is ‘sufficient specificity’ in the context of anticipation of ranges?
‘Sufficient specificity’ is a key concept in determining whether a prior art range anticipates a claimed range when there is overlap but no specific examples within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03: “When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of “sufficient specificity” in anticipation of ranges?
“Sufficient specificity” is a crucial concept in determining whether a prior art reference anticipates a claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03: “When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as…
Read More