What happens if there’s a lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness in a patent application?

The absence of objective evidence of nonobviousness in a patent application does not automatically result in a finding of obviousness. According to MPEP 716.01(a): “The lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness.” This statement, citing Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., indicates that the absence of such evidence is…

Read More

What is the requirement for comparing claimed subject matter in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132?

An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to effectively rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated in MPEP 716.02(e): “An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective…

Read More

How does the MPEP address the balance between prima facie obviousness and rebuttal evidence?

The MPEP 716.01(d) addresses the balance between prima facie obviousness and rebuttal evidence by stating: “The ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence.” This guidance emphasizes that examiners must consider both…

Read More

How does the USPTO weigh evidence of expected and unexpected results in patent applications?

The USPTO weighs evidence of expected and unexpected results in patent applications as follows: Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness. The strength of each supporting and opposing factor is considered. The examiner must make a final determination based on the entirety of the record. As stated in MPEP…

Read More

How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for chemical compounds?

How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for chemical compounds? The USPTO has specific guidelines for evaluating allegations of unexpected results, particularly for chemical compounds. According to MPEP 716.02(a)(II): “Evidence that a compound possesses unexpected properties is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness if the prior art suggested that…

Read More

How does the USPTO balance prima facie obviousness and secondary considerations?

The USPTO balances prima facie obviousness and secondary considerations by following the guidance in MPEP 716.01(d). The key aspects of this balancing act are: Prima facie obviousness and secondary considerations are both part of the overall obviousness analysis. Examiners must consider all evidence before making a final determination. The strength of the prima facie case…

Read More

How should unexpected results be shown when there are two equally close prior art references?

When dealing with two equally close prior art references, showing unexpected results over one reference may not be sufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness. The MPEP 716.02(e) states: “Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art references will not rebut prima facie obviousness unless the teachings of the prior art references are…

Read More

What is the significance of objective evidence in overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness?

The significance of objective evidence in overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness is highlighted in MPEP 716.01(d). The manual states: “Where the evidence is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case, the rejection will be maintained.” This implies that objective evidence can potentially overcome a prima facie case of obviousness if it is sufficiently…

Read More