How does the MPEP address the use of admissions for both anticipation and obviousness?

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) addresses the use of admissions for both anticipation and obviousness determinations. MPEP 2129 states: “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations.”…

Read More

What is the significance of “proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”?

What is the significance of “proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”? This principle is crucial in evaluating the obviousness of a claimed invention. According to MPEP 2143.01(V): “If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion…

Read More

How does the “proposed modification cannot change the principle of operation” affect obviousness determinations?

How does the “proposed modification cannot change the principle of operation” affect obviousness determinations? This principle is a critical consideration in assessing the obviousness of a claimed invention. According to MPEP 2143.01(VI): “If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified,…

Read More

How 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 More

How 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 More