What is the relationship between equivalence and obviousness in patent examination?

In patent examination, there is an important relationship between equivalence and obviousness: If an applicant successfully shows that a prior art element is not equivalent to the claimed limitation, the examiner must still consider obviousness. Non-equivalence does not automatically mean non-obviousness. The examiner must perform a 35 U.S.C. 103 analysis to determine if the claimed…

Read More

What is the difference between anticipation and obviousness in patent rejections?

What is the difference between anticipation and obviousness in patent rejections? Anticipation and obviousness are two distinct grounds for rejecting a patent application based on prior art: Anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102): This occurs when a single prior art reference discloses all elements of the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2131, “A claim is anticipated…

Read More