How do admissions affect anticipation and obviousness determinations?

Admissions by an applicant can significantly impact both anticipation and obviousness determinations in patent examination. As stated in MPEP 2152.03: “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless…

Read More

What constitutes an admission as prior art in patent law?

An admission as prior art in patent law occurs when an applicant identifies the work of another as “prior art” in the specification or during prosecution. According to MPEP 2129, such admissions “can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art…

Read More

How does the MPEP define “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation?

The MPEP provides guidance on what constitutes “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation. According to MPEP 1504.02: The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of…

Read More

Can functional features be considered in a design patent anticipation rejection?

Functional features generally cannot be relied upon to support patentability in design patent anticipation rejections. The MPEP states: When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. Additionally,…

Read More

What does “anticipated by the prior art” mean in the context of novelty assessment?

In the context of novelty assessment for international patent applications, “anticipated by the prior art” refers to the situation where an invention is not considered novel because it has already been disclosed in the prior art. The PCT Article 33(2) states: “For the purposes of the international preliminary examination, a claimed invention shall be considered…

Read More