When is the elimination of an element or step considered obvious?
The elimination of an element or step can be considered obvious under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2144.04, “Omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.” This principle is illustrated in several cases: Ex parte Wu: Omission of a component in an anticorrosion composition was…
Read MoreHow does automating a manual activity affect patentability?
Automating a manual activity is generally not sufficient to distinguish an invention over prior art. According to MPEP 2144.04, “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.” This principle is illustrated in the case of In re…
Read MoreHow do aesthetic design changes affect patentability?
Aesthetic design changes generally have limited impact on patentability, especially when they serve no mechanical function. According to MPEP 2144.04, “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” This principle is illustrated in the case of In re Seid,…
Read More