What is the significance of ‘critical’ or ‘optimum’ ranges in patent claims?
What is the significance of ‘critical’ or ‘optimum’ ranges in patent claims? ‘Critical’ or ‘optimum’ ranges in patent claims are significant because they can potentially overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. According to MPEP 2144.05: “The applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected…
Read MoreWhat types of evidence can be used to rebut an obviousness rejection?
The MPEP outlines several types of evidence that can be used to rebut an obviousness rejection: Evidence of unexpected results Evidence that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art Evidence that the claimed invention was copied by others Evidence of the state of the art, the level…
Read MoreHow can inventors overcome an obviousness rejection based on Art Recognized Suitability?
Inventors facing an obviousness rejection based on Art Recognized Suitability can employ several strategies to overcome the rejection: Demonstrate unexpected results: Show that the invention produces results that would not have been predicted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prove superior properties: Provide evidence that the chosen material or component performs better…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between criticality and obviousness in patent law?
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05: “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is…
Read MoreHow does criticality affect anticipation of ranges?
Criticality can play a significant role in determining whether a prior art range anticipates a claimed range, especially when the ranges overlap or are close. If an applicant can demonstrate that the claimed range is critical to the invention’s function or produces unexpected results, it may overcome an anticipation rejection. The MPEP 2131.03 discusses this…
Read MoreHow do ‘intermediate range’ cases affect unexpected results arguments in patents?
‘Intermediate range’ cases present unique challenges when arguing for unexpected results in patent applications. MPEP 716.02(d) provides guidance on this issue: The court has held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of ‘a marked improvement, over the results…
Read MoreWhat is the importance of demonstrating criticality of a claimed range?
Demonstrating the criticality of a claimed range is crucial in overcoming obviousness rejections. The MPEP 716.02(d) provides guidance on this: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. This means that applicants…
Read MoreHow many examples are needed to demonstrate superiority for nonobviousness in patents?
When it comes to demonstrating superiority to support nonobviousness in patent applications, there is no set number of examples required. According to MPEP 716.02(a): No set number of examples of superiority is required. This principle is illustrated by the case of In re Chupp, cited in the MPEP: Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound…
Read MoreHow do examiners balance expected and unexpected results in patent applications?
Patent examiners must carefully balance expected and unexpected results when evaluating patent applications. The MPEP 716.02(c) provides guidance on this process: ‘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 of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut…
Read MoreCan evidence of unexpected results be presented after filing a patent application?
Yes, evidence of unexpected results can be presented after filing a patent application. MPEP 716.02(f) clarifies that evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the original specification should not be disregarded. The Federal Circuit in In re Chu explicitly stated: “We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant’s evidence…
Read More