How can inherent characteristics be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?

Inherent characteristics can be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection by using additional references or evidence to demonstrate that a feature, while not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, is necessarily present. MPEP 2131.01 provides guidance on this: “To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such…

Read More

What is inherency in patent law?

Inherency in patent law refers to characteristics or properties that are necessarily present in a prior art reference, even if they were not explicitly recognized or disclosed. As stated in the MPEP, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does…

Read More

How does inherency apply to anticipation rejections in patent examination?

How does inherency apply to anticipation rejections in patent examination? Inherency is an important concept in anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102. It allows examiners to consider features that are not explicitly stated in a prior art reference but are necessarily present or naturally flow from the reference’s teachings. The MPEP 2131 states: “To serve…

Read More

What is the significance of In re Wiggins in patent law?

In re Wiggins is a significant case in patent law that clarifies the role of secondary considerations in different types of patent rejections. The case is cited in MPEP 2131.04, which states: “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…

Read More

What is the “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102?

What is the “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102? The “identical invention” requirement for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 means that the prior art reference must disclose every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, in the same configuration as in the claim. As stated in the MPEP 2131: “A…

Read More

Is the “how to use” requirement necessary for a prior art document to qualify as anticipatory under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102?

No, the “how to use” requirement is not necessary for a prior art document to qualify as anticipatory under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. The MPEP explicitly states: “There is, however, no requirement that a prior art document meet the ‘how to use’ requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order to qualify as prior art.” This…

Read More