Can these methods also be used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection?
Yes, the methods used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection can also be used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection that is based on 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) prior art. MPEP 2152.06 explicitly states: “Note that all of the ways of overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection mentioned…
Read MoreWhat options do applicants have to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) in international design applications?
Applicants have several options to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) in international design applications due to insufficient drawing disclosure. The MPEP suggests the following approach: “Applicant may indicate that protection is not sought for those portions of the reproductions which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112…
Read MoreCan a negative limitation be used to overcome a prior art rejection?
Can a negative limitation be used to overcome a prior art rejection? Yes, a negative limitation can be used to overcome a prior art rejection, provided it meets certain criteria. According to MPEP 2173.05(i): “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does…
Read MoreHow does the size of a genus affect the requirements for overcoming a rejection?
The size of a genus can significantly affect the requirements for overcoming a rejection. For smaller genera, showing possession of fewer species may be sufficient, while larger genera may require more extensive evidence. As explained in MPEP 715.03: “In the case of a small genus such as the halogens, which consists of four species, a…
Read More