What is the role of prior art in determining claim definiteness?
Prior art plays a significant role in determining claim definiteness during patent examination. According to MPEP 2173.02: “Definiteness of claim language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of: (A) The content of the particular application disclosure; (B) The teachings of the prior art; and (C) The claim interpretation that would be…
Read MoreHow is prior art considered in inter partes reexamination?
In inter partes reexamination, the consideration of prior art is limited to specific types of documents. According to MPEP 2609: Prior art considered during reexamination is limited to prior patents or printed publications applied under the appropriate parts of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103; This means that only patents and printed publications can be used…
Read MoreHow is prior art handled in ex parte reexamination after the order is issued?
The handling of prior art in ex parte reexamination after the order is issued is governed by specific rules. According to MPEP 2246: Prior art citations or written statements under 37 CFR 1.501 submitted after the date of the decision on the order are stored until the reexamination is concluded. After the reexamination proceeding is…
Read MoreHow does the size of a prior art genus affect obviousness analysis?
The size of a prior art genus is a factor to consider in obviousness analysis, but it’s not determinative on its own. As stated in MPEP 2144.08: “Consider the size of the prior art genus, bearing in mind that size alone cannot support an obviousness rejection. There is no absolute correlation between the size of…
Read MoreWhat types of prior art can be considered in ex parte reexamination?
In ex parte reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, the types of prior art that can be considered are limited. According to MPEP 2209: “In ex parte reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, prior art considered during reexamination is limited to prior art patents or printed publications applied under the appropriate parts of 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreHow are drawings in prior art interpreted for patent examination?
How are drawings in prior art interpreted for patent examination? Drawings in prior art are interpreted as follows for patent examination: Proportions of features: The drawings are not assumed to be to scale unless specifically described as such in the reference. Disclosed features: Drawings can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is…
Read MoreHow does a prior art reference’s content affect its use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
How does a prior art reference’s content affect its use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)? The content of a prior art reference can significantly impact its use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). According to MPEP 2136.02: “Subject matter that is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on an earlier effective filing date…
Read MoreWhat prior art must an examiner consider during inter partes reexamination?
During inter partes reexamination, an examiner must consider various sources of prior art, including: Patents and printed publications cited in the reexamination request Prior art cited by other reexamination requesters Prior art submitted by the patent owner under the duty of disclosure Prior art discovered by the examiner during searching Prior art of record from…
Read MoreHow does the degree of consideration for submitted prior art differ in ex parte reexamination?
In ex parte reexamination, the degree of consideration given to submitted prior art depends on how the information is presented. The MPEP states: “Where patents, publications, and other such documents are submitted by a party (patent owner or requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration to be given…
Read MoreHow does the disclosure of alternatives affect a prior art suggestion?
The disclosure of desirable alternatives in prior art does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in MPEP 2143.01, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does…
Read More