What is the significance of the ‘In re Marzocchi’ case in patent law regarding predictability and enablement?

The ‘In re Marzocchi’ case is significant in patent law for its discussion of predictability and enablement, particularly in the field of chemistry. According to MPEP 2164.03, which cites this case: “[I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a…

Read More

What is a proper Markush grouping?

A proper Markush grouping, as defined in MPEP 803.02, must meet two criteria: The members of the Markush group share a “single structural similarity” The members share a common use The MPEP cites the Supplementary Guidelines, which state: “Where a Markush grouping describes part of a combination or process, the members following ‘selected from the…

Read More

What is an example of expert skepticism in patent law?

The MPEP provides a specific example of expert skepticism in patent law: The patented process converted all the sulfur compounds in a certain effluent gas stream to hydrogen sulfide, and thereafter treated the resulting effluent for removal of hydrogen sulfide. Before learning of the patented process, chemical experts, aware of earlier failed efforts to reduce…

Read More

How many examples are needed to demonstrate superiority for nonobviousness in patents?

When it comes to demonstrating superiority to support nonobviousness in patent applications, there is no set number of examples required. According to MPEP 716.02(a): No set number of examples of superiority is required. This principle is illustrated by the case of In re Chupp, cited in the MPEP: Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound…

Read More