Can secondary considerations overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
No, secondary considerations cannot overcome a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation). This is clearly stated in MPEP 2131.04: “Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based.” The MPEP cites the case of In re Wiggins…
Read MoreHow does the scope of patent claims relate to the enablement requirement?
How does the scope of patent claims relate to the enablement requirement? The scope of patent claims is closely related to the enablement requirement. The MPEP 2164.01(b) emphasizes this relationship: “As long as the specification discloses at least one method for making and using the claimed invention that bears a reasonable correlation to the entire…
Read MoreWhat is the scope of prior art available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the entire disclosure of certain U.S. patents, patent application publications, or international application publications can be used as prior art against patent claims. As stated in the MPEP: “Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the entire disclosure of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication…
Read MoreHow does the scope of enablement relate to the breadth of patent claims?
How does the scope of enablement relate to the breadth of patent claims? The scope of enablement and the breadth of patent claims are closely related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2164.08, “All questions of enablement are evaluated against the claimed subject matter. The focus of the examination inquiry is whether everything within…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between scientific theory and common sense in patent obviousness?
What is the difference between scientific theory and common sense in patent obviousness? In patent examination, both scientific theory and common sense can be used to support obviousness rejections, but they are distinct concepts with different applications. The MPEP 2144.02 discusses reliance on scientific theory, while common sense is addressed in other sections of the…
Read MoreWhat is the role of scientific theory in patent rejections?
Scientific theory can play a significant role in patent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. As stated in MPEP 2144.02: “The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle.” This means that patent examiners can use established scientific theories and principles as part of their reasoning to…
Read MoreHow does reliance on scientific theory affect patent examination?
How does reliance on scientific theory affect patent examination? Reliance on scientific theory plays a significant role in patent examination, particularly when assessing the obviousness of an invention. The MPEP 2144.02 provides guidance on this matter: “The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle.” This…
Read MoreWhat is required to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112 regarding how to use a claimed invention?
To satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112 regarding how to use a claimed invention, the following conditions are sufficient: A statement of utility in the specification that contains a connotation of how to use The art recognizes that standard modes of administration are known and contemplated As stated in the MPEP, If a statement of utility in…
Read MoreHow is the “same field of endeavor” determined for analogous art?
When determining whether a reference is in the “same field of endeavor” as the claimed invention, examiners should consider: Explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application The embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention The MPEP states: “When determining whether the ‘relevant field of endeavor’ test is met, the examiner should…
Read MoreWhat is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01?
What is the “same article” principle in MPEP 2112.01? The “same article” principle is explained in MPEP 2112.01 as follows: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has…
Read More