How do patent examiners evaluate evidence of expected and unexpected results?
Patent examiners evaluate evidence of expected and unexpected results by weighing them against each other and considering their significance. The MPEP provides guidance: “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)) Examiners must consider both types…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP define ‘unexpected results’ in the context of patent applications?
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidance on what constitutes ‘unexpected results’ in the context of patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(a), unexpected results can be demonstrated in several ways: Greater than expected results: A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness … of the…
Read MoreCan the absence of an expected property support nonobviousness in patent applications?
Yes, the absence of an expected property can be evidence of nonobviousness in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(a): Absence of property which a claimed invention would have been expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art is evidence of unobviousness. This principle is illustrated by the case of Ex parte Mead…
Read More