What are the rationales supporting obviousness conclusions after KSR?
Following KSR, the MPEP outlines several rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way Applying a…
Read MoreHow does the KSR decision affect the determination of a substantial new question of patentability?
The KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. decision, which clarified the legal standard for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, does not directly alter the standard for determining whether a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) exists. The MPEP states: “Note that the clarification of the legal standard for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103…
Read MoreHow does the KSR decision impact obviousness determinations in patent examination?
How does the KSR decision impact obviousness determinations in patent examination? The KSR v. Teleflex decision by the Supreme Court in 2007 significantly impacted obviousness determinations in patent examination. According to MPEP 2141: “In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized ‘the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found…
Read MoreHow does the KSR decision affect the determination of analogous art?
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), did not fundamentally change the test for analogous art as stated in In re Bigio. According to MPEP 2141.01(a): “The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), did not change…
Read MoreHow does the KSR decision affect the standard for substantial new question of patentability?
The KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. decision, which clarified the legal standard for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, does not directly change the standard for determining a substantial new question of patentability in ex parte reexamination. The MPEP 2216 states: “The clarification of the legal standard for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103…
Read MoreHow does the Supreme Court’s KSR decision impact design patent obviousness analysis?
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), has significantly impacted the obviousness analysis for design patents. The MPEP states: “In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and discussed…
Read More