How does the USPTO handle arguments about improper hindsight in obviousness rejections?

Applicants often argue that an examiner’s obviousness rejection is based on improper hindsight reasoning. MPEP 2145 addresses this issue: “Applicants may argue that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning. However, ‘[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it…

Read More

How does implicit disclosure affect the novelty and obviousness of an invention?

Implicit disclosure plays a crucial role in determining the novelty and obviousness of an invention. When examining prior art, patent examiners consider both explicit teachings and implicit disclosures. As per MPEP 2144.01, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the…

Read More

How does an examiner determine if a reference is analogous art?

According to MPEP 2141.01(a), an examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. The MPEP provides guidance on this process: Same Field of Endeavor Test: The examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and…

Read More

How are rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) formulated?

Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are formulated using form paragraph 7.21.fti. This paragraph provides the basic structure for stating the rejection: Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2]. The examiner fills in the claim numbers being rejected in bracket [1] and the prior art reference(s) being relied…

Read More

What is the relationship between equivalence and obviousness in patent examination?

In patent examination, there is an important relationship between equivalence and obviousness: If an applicant successfully shows that a prior art element is not equivalent to the claimed limitation, the examiner must still consider obviousness. Non-equivalence does not automatically mean non-obviousness. The examiner must perform a 35 U.S.C. 103 analysis to determine if the claimed…

Read More