What are the rationales for obviousness rejections after KSR?

What are the rationales for obviousness rejections after KSR? Following the KSR v. Teleflex decision, the USPTO identified several rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness. According to MPEP 2141, these rationales include: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results Simple substitution of one known element for another to…

Read More

How does the KSR decision impact obviousness determinations in patent examination?

How does the KSR decision impact obviousness determinations in patent examination? The KSR v. Teleflex decision by the Supreme Court in 2007 significantly impacted obviousness determinations in patent examination. According to MPEP 2141: “In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized ‘the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found…

Read More

How does an examiner determine if a reference is analogous art?

According to MPEP 2141.01(a), an examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. The MPEP provides guidance on this process: Same Field of Endeavor Test: The examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and…

Read More

What is the difference between using prior art for 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections?

The use of prior art differs for 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) and 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness) rejections. For 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, the MPEP Section 2121.01 indicates that the reference must contain an enabling disclosure: “The disclosure in an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter; mere naming or…

Read More