How does pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) interact with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103?
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) can interact with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 in patent examinations. The MPEP states: In addition, subject matter qualifying as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) may also be the basis for an ex parte rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. This means that an invention that qualifies as prior…
Read MoreHow does pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) interact with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103?
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) can interact with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 in certain situations. The MPEP explains that subject matter qualifying as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) can be used as a basis for an ex parte rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there’s an important exception to this rule. The…
Read MoreWhat is the test for obviousness in patent law?
The test for obviousness is based on what the combined teachings of prior art references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. According to MPEP 2143.01, “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching,…
Read MoreCan a prior art disclosure be used in an obviousness rejection if it doesn’t meet the anticipation requirements?
Yes, a prior art disclosure can be used in an obviousness rejection even if it doesn’t meet the anticipation requirements. The MPEP clarifies: “The description requirement of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) does not preclude an examiner from applying a disclosure in an obviousness rejection under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 simply because the disclosure…
Read MoreWhat is the legal standard for obviousness of overlapping ranges?
According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” This principle is based on several court decisions, including In re Wertheim and In re Woodruff. The MPEP further states: “[A] prior art reference that discloses a…
Read MoreWhat is the framework for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103?
The framework for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based on the Graham v. John Deere Co. case. The Supreme Court in KSR reaffirmed this framework, which includes the following factual inquiries: The scope and content of the prior art The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art The level of ordinary…
Read MoreWhat is the “obvious to try” rationale in patent law?
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05: “The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there…
Read MoreWhat is the “obvious to try” rationale for obviousness?
The “obvious to try” rationale for obviousness can be used when: There is a recognized problem or need in the art There are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the problem One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success As stated…
Read MoreHow does MPEP treat optimization of ranges through routine experimentation?
How does MPEP treat optimization of ranges through routine experimentation? The MPEP addresses the optimization of ranges through routine experimentation in section 2144.05. According to this guidance: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” This…
Read MoreHow does MPEP address the obviousness of similar proportions or amounts?
How does MPEP address the obviousness of similar proportions or amounts? The MPEP addresses the obviousness of similar proportions or amounts in section 2144.05. According to this guidance: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or…
Read More