How do changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients impact patentability?
Changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients generally have limited impact on patentability unless they produce unexpected results or solve a specific problem. According to MPEP 2144.04, these changes are often considered obvious variations.
Size/Proportion: “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” (In re Rinehart)
Shape: “the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” (In re Dailey)
Sequence of Adding Ingredients: “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (In re Burhans)
Key considerations:
- Do the changes result in unexpected outcomes or solve a specific problem?
- Is there evidence of criticality for the specific size, shape, or sequence?
- Would the changes be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?
To learn more: