How do reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts affect patentability?
Reversal, duplication, or rearrangement of parts 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 modifications.
Reversal of Parts: “mere reversal of such movement… was held to be an obvious modification.” (In re Gazda)
Duplication of Parts: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” (In re Harza)
Rearrangement of Parts: “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” (In re Kuhle)
Key considerations:
- Do the changes result in new or unexpected functionality?
- Is there a recognized problem in the art that these changes solve?
- Would the modifications be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?
Inventors should focus on demonstrating unique benefits or unexpected results arising from these changes to strengthen their case for patentability. Simply reversing, duplicating, or rearranging parts without a demonstrable improvement or solution to a problem is unlikely to be considered patentable.
To learn more: