How can an inventor overcome an obviousness rejection based on art recognized equivalence?
An inventor facing an obviousness rejection based on art recognized equivalence can employ several strategies to overcome the rejection. Here are some approaches based on the principles outlined in MPEP 2144.06: Challenge the Equivalency: Argue that the prior art does not actually recognize the equivalency between the components. Remember, the MPEP states: “In order to…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between combining and substituting equivalents in patent law?
In patent law, there is a distinction between combining equivalents and substituting equivalents, as outlined in MPEP 2144.06. The key differences are: Combining Equivalents: This involves using two or more components together, each known for the same purpose, to create a new composition or method for that same purpose. The In re Kerkhoven case exemplifies…
Read MoreWhat is the principle of “Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose” in patent law?
The principle of “Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose” is a legal concept in patent law that allows patent examiners to combine or substitute known equivalents in determining obviousness. This principle is outlined in MPEP 2144.06 and is based on two main ideas: Combining equivalents known for the same purpose Substituting equivalents known for…
Read MoreHow does the concept of “Art Recognized Equivalence” apply to mechanical inventions?
The concept of “Art Recognized Equivalence” applies to mechanical inventions in much the same way as it does to chemical compositions. According to MPEP 2144.06, the principle can be applied to functional or mechanical equivalents. However, it’s important to note: “The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be…
Read More