How does a prior art reference disclosing a range overlap with a claimed range affect patentability?
When a prior art reference discloses a range that overlaps with a claimed range, it can affect patentability in the following ways: If the prior art range overlaps or lies inside the claimed range, it may establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The overlapping ranges create an expectation that the claimed range will have…
Read MoreHow does the breadth of a prior art range affect obviousness determinations?
The breadth of a prior art range can significantly impact obviousness determinations in patent law. According to MPEP 2144.05: “One factor that may weigh against maintaining an obviousness rejection based on optimization of a variable disclosed in a range in the prior art is where an applicant establishes that the prior art disclosure of the…
Read MoreHow does the size of a prior art genus affect obviousness analysis?
The size of a prior art genus is a factor to consider in obviousness analysis, but it’s not determinative on its own. As stated in MPEP 2144.08: “Consider the size of the prior art genus, bearing in mind that size alone cannot support an obviousness rejection. There is no absolute correlation between the size of…
Read MoreCan a prior art reference be used for both anticipation and obviousness rejections?
Can a prior art reference be used for both anticipation and obviousness rejections? Yes, a single prior art reference can be used for both anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections. The MPEP 2136.02 states: “A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 can be made when the prior art product seems…
Read MoreHow does changing the principle of operation of a reference affect obviousness?
Changing the principle of operation of a prior art reference can negate an obviousness rejection. As stated in MPEP 2143.01, “If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the…
Read MoreWhat is the legal standard for establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in product and apparatus claims?
According to MPEP 2112.01(I), a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established when: The claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or The claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes This principle is supported by the following quote from…
Read MoreHow does the predictability of the technology affect obviousness analysis for species claims?
The predictability of the technology is an important factor in obviousness analysis for species claims. As stated in MPEP 2144.08: “Consider the predictability of the technology. If the technology is unpredictable, it is less likely that structurally similar species will render a claimed species obvious because it may not be reasonable to infer that they…
Read MoreHow do pre-AIA notions of obviousness apply under the AIA?
Generally, pre-AIA notions of obviousness continue to apply under the AIA, with some exceptions. The MPEP states: “Generally speaking, and with the exceptions noted herein, pre-AIA notions of obviousness continue to apply under the AIA.“ This means that many of the established principles and case law regarding obviousness determinations remain relevant under the AIA. However,…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is designed to disqualify certain prior art for obviousness considerations under specific conditions. As stated in the MPEP, It is important to recognize that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) applies only to consideration of prior art for purposes of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. It does not apply to or affect subject…
Read MoreHow does Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) affect joint research agreements?
How does Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) affect joint research agreements? Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) has significant implications for joint research agreements. The MPEP 2146 provides guidance on this matter: “Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) applies to subject matter developed by another person which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.…
Read More