What is an SNQ in patent reexamination?
SNQ stands for “Substantial New Question of patentability.” In the context of patent reexamination, an SNQ is a crucial factor in determining whether a reexamination request should be granted. The MPEP § 2255 mentions: “However, if a petition under 37 CFR 1.515(c) is granted after an examiner’s determination that found the request did not raise…
Read MoreHow do changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients impact patentability?
Changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients generally have limited impact on patentability unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes are often considered obvious variations. Size/Proportion: “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case,…
Read MoreHow does secret commercial use affect patentability?
Secret commercial use of an invention can significantly impact patentability. According to MPEP 2133.03(a): “Secret use is use by the inventor or by persons under the inventor’s control that is not visible to the public. Secret use may be commercial use or non-commercial use.” Key points about secret commercial use: It can trigger the one-year…
Read MoreHow do reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts affect patentability?
Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts generally have limited impact on patentability unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes are often considered obvious modifications. Reversal of Parts: “mere reversal of such movement… was held to be an obvious modification.” (In re Gazda) Duplication of Parts: “mere…
Read MoreHow does the purification of an old product impact its patentability?
The purification of an old product can impact its patentability, but mere purity alone is not always sufficient to render a product nonobvious. According to MPEP 2144.04, “Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a…
Read MoreHow does the “patentability of a product” relate to its method of production in product-by-process claims?
The patentability of a product claimed in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, not the method of production. As stated in MPEP 2113: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend…
Read MoreHow are product-by-process claims evaluated for patentability?
According to MPEP 2113, the evaluation of product-by-process claims focuses on the final product, not the process of making it. The MPEP states: “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by…
Read MoreHow does a prior art reference disclosing a range overlap with a claimed range affect patentability?
When a prior art reference discloses a range that overlaps with a claimed range, it can affect patentability in the following ways: If the prior art range overlaps or lies inside the claimed range, it may establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The overlapping ranges create an expectation that the claimed range will have…
Read MoreHow do changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts affect patentability?
Changes in portability, integration, or separation of parts are generally considered obvious modifications unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes often fall under routine engineering choices. Portability: “Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an…
Read MoreCan newly discovered results of known processes be patented under the doctrine of inherency?
Can newly discovered results of known processes be patented under the doctrine of inherency? The patentability of newly discovered results of known processes under the doctrine of inherency is a complex issue in patent law. According to MPEP 2112, the mere discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a…
Read More