What is the importance of comparing with the closest prior art?
Comparing the claimed invention with the closest prior art is crucial for establishing unexpected results. The MPEP states: An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. (MPEP 716.02(e)) This comparison helps demonstrate that…
Read MoreWhat are some common pitfalls in presenting evidence of unexpected results?
Common pitfalls in presenting evidence of unexpected results include not providing sufficient data to cover the entire claimed range and failing to show criticality. The MPEP 716.02(d) cites several cases that illustrate these issues: In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing…
Read MoreCan a comparison with a commercial product be used to show unexpected results in a patent application?
While it’s possible to use a comparison with a commercial product to show unexpected results, it’s generally not considered sufficient on its own. The MPEP 716.02(e) provides guidance on this: ‘Comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing…
Read MoreWhat does ‘commensurate in scope’ mean in the context of unexpected results?
‘Commensurate in scope’ refers to the requirement that evidence of unexpected results must cover the entire range of the claimed invention. The MPEP 716.02(d) states: Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of ‘commensurate in scope’ for unexpected results?
‘Commensurate in scope’ means that the evidence of unexpected results must apply to the full range of the claimed invention. The MPEP states: Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the…
Read MoreHow does the ‘commensurate in scope’ requirement affect unexpected results claims in patents?
How does the ‘commensurate in scope’ requirement affect unexpected results claims in patents? The ‘commensurate in scope’ requirement is a critical factor in evaluating unexpected results claims in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(d): “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the…
Read MoreWhat is the burden on applicants when presenting evidence of unexpected results?
According to MPEP 716.02(b), applicants have the burden of establishing that the differences in results are both unexpected and significant. The MPEP states: “The evidence relied upon should establish ‘that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.’” This means that applicants must not only show…
Read MoreHow does the ‘area of technology’ affect unexpected results in patent applications?
The ‘area of technology’ plays a significant role in determining whether unexpected results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. According to MPEP 716.02(d): Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope…
Read MoreHow are unexpected results weighed in patent examination?
In patent examination, unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness when determining the obviousness of a claimed invention. The MPEP states: “Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention.” (MPEP 716.02(c)) This means that…
Read MoreHow are unexpected results weighed against evidence of obviousness?
Unexpected results are weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness to determine the overall obviousness of the claimed invention. The MPEP states: Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. (MPEP 716.02(c)) The significance of the unexpected results…
Read More