What are expected beneficial results in patent law?
Expected beneficial results are considered evidence of obviousness in patent law. The MPEP clearly states: “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” (MPEP 716.02(c)) This means that if the beneficial results of an invention would have been expected based on the prior…
Read MoreAre exhibits always required with a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration?
Exhibits are not always required with a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration, but they may be necessary in some situations. The MPEP explains: 37 CFR 1.130 does not contain a provision that ‘Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be…
Read MoreWhat types of evidence are acceptable for an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a)?
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) can include various types of evidence to support the inventor’s prior conception and reduction to practice. According to MPEP 715.07: The evidence may consist of testimony of the inventor in the form of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), documentary evidence, drawings, and models. Acceptable…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required to establish long-felt need in a patent application?
To establish long-felt need in a patent application, specific types of evidence are required. The MPEP 716.04 outlines the following key requirements: Objective evidence: The long-felt need must be supported by evidence, not just assertions. Persistent need: Show that the need has been recognized and persistent for a significant time. Unsuccessful attempts: Demonstrate that others…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a)?
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) must include evidence that supports the inventor’s claim of prior invention. According to the MPEP: ‘The evidence submitted with a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must demonstrate that the inventor or at least one joint inventor completed the invention in question prior to the effective date…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required in a 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration for attribution?
A 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration for attribution requires specific evidence to effectively overcome a prior art rejection. According to MPEP 717.01(a): The evidence necessary to show that the disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor must be submitted, including an explanation of how the inventor or joint inventor is connected to the disclosure.…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) for prior public disclosure?
A declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) for prior public disclosure requires specific evidence to be effective. According to MPEP 717.01(b): “The evidence necessary to show prior public disclosure under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required in a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration?
A 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must provide evidence that the inventor completed the invention before the effective date of the prior art reference. The MPEP 715 outlines the required evidence: Reduction to practice: Proof that the invention was actually reduced to practice before the effective date of the reference. Conception and diligence: Evidence…
Read MoreWhat evidence is required in a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration?
A 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must include evidence that demonstrates prior invention. The MPEP provides guidance on the required evidence: ‘The evidence submitted with a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must demonstrate that the inventor or at least one joint inventor had possession of either the whole invention claimed or something falling…
Read MoreWhat types of evidence can be used to overcome a rejection under MPEP 715.01(d)?
According to MPEP 715.01(d), various types of evidence can be used to overcome a rejection. The section states: The rejection of a claim by the examiner may be based on the activities of an individual or entity other than the inventor or a joint inventor. […] These activities may have been performed by an entity…
Read More