How does the presence of an unexpected property affect patent nonobviousness?
The presence of an unexpected property can be strong evidence of nonobviousness in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(a): Presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence of nonobviousness. This principle is illustrated by several cases cited in the MPEP: In re Papesch: Claims to a compound structurally similar to a…
Read MoreHow significant must unexpected properties be to overcome obviousness?
For unexpected properties to overcome an obviousness rejection, they must be shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties. The MPEP provides guidance on this: “Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence…
Read More