What is the significance of the “intended purpose” of prior art in obviousness determinations?

The proposed modification of prior art must not render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose when determining obviousness. According to MPEP 2143.01, “If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.” This principle, established in…

Read More

What is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law?

What is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law? The relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law is complex and often intertwined. While inherency deals with properties or functions that are necessarily present but not explicitly stated, obviousness relates to whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of…

Read More

What is inherency in patent law?

Inherency in patent law refers to characteristics or properties that are necessarily present in a prior art reference, even if they were not explicitly recognized or disclosed. As stated in the MPEP, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does…

Read More

What is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent rejections?

What is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent rejections? The relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent rejections is complex and often misunderstood. According to MPEP 2112: “The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that…

Read More