How do unexplained features in patent drawings affect prior art rejections?
How do unexplained features in patent drawings affect prior art rejections? Unexplained features in patent drawings can still be used as a basis for prior art rejections. According to MPEP 2125: “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of 37 CFR 1.130 affidavits or declarations?
The purpose of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 is to overcome prior art rejections by establishing that: The disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor (1.130(a) declaration) The subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor (1.130(a) declaration) The subject matter disclosed had been…
Read MoreCan a 1.130 declaration be used to overcome all types of prior art rejections?
No, a 1.130 declaration cannot be used to overcome all types of prior art rejections. According to MPEP 2155, 1.130 declarations are specifically designed to address certain types of prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2). They cannot be used to overcome rejections based on: Prior art that falls outside the 1-year grace…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections?
The key difference between rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 lies in how the prior art is applied: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Anticipation): The claim is anticipated by the reference. As stated in the MPEP, “for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either…
Read MoreWhat are the guidelines for using the “best available art” in prior art rejections?
The MPEP provides guidelines for using the “best available art” in prior art rejections. The general principle is stated as: “Prior art rejections should ordinarily be confined strictly to the best available art.“ However, there are exceptions to this rule. The MPEP mentions that exceptions may be properly made in certain cases, although it doesn’t…
Read MoreHow does 37 CFR 1.130 help overcome prior art rejections?
37 CFR 1.130 provides a mechanism for applicants to overcome prior art rejections by establishing that certain disclosures should not be considered prior art under the America Invents Act (AIA). It helps in two primary ways: Attribution (37 CFR 1.130(a)): By showing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor, or that…
Read MoreHow does double patenting differ from prior art rejections?
While double patenting and prior art rejections may seem similar, there are key differences: Double patenting compares claims, while prior art rejections compare claims to disclosures Terminal disclaimers can overcome nonstatutory double patenting but not prior art rejections Double patenting requires some commonality in ownership or inventorship Prior art exceptions may not apply to double…
Read MoreHow does common ownership affect prior art rejections?
Common ownership can affect prior art rejections by potentially disqualifying certain references as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). If the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were commonly owned at the relevant time, the disclosure may not be used as prior art for certain rejections. The MPEP states:…
Read MoreHow should examiners handle rejections based on prior art?
How should examiners handle rejections based on prior art? Examiners must carefully consider prior art when making rejections. According to MPEP 706: ‘The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the…
Read MoreWhat is the effect of a proper common ownership statement on prior art rejections?
What is the effect of a proper common ownership statement on prior art rejections? A properly filed common ownership statement can have a significant impact on prior art rejections. The MPEP 717.02(c) states: “If the applicant disqualifies the subject matter relied upon by the examiner in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and the procedures set…
Read More