What is the requirement for substituting equivalents in patent obviousness?
When considering the substitution of equivalents in patent obviousness determinations, there are specific requirements outlined in MPEP 2144.06. The key requirement is that the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. As stated in the MPEP: “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between combining and substituting equivalents in patent law?
In patent law, there is a distinction between combining equivalents and substituting equivalents, as outlined in MPEP 2144.06. The key differences are: Combining Equivalents: This involves using two or more components together, each known for the same purpose, to create a new composition or method for that same purpose. The In re Kerkhoven case exemplifies…
Read More