How does MPEP 715.02 address the issue of inherency in prior art rejections?
MPEP 715.02 addresses the issue of inherency in prior art rejections, particularly in relation to how much of the claimed invention must be shown. The section states:
“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.”
This means that when a prior art reference doesn’t explicitly disclose a claimed feature, but that feature is inherently present, the reference may still anticipate the claim. However, as explained in MPEP 715.02, the inherency must be clear and recognizable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiners may use extrinsic evidence to demonstrate inherency, but the evidence must show that the undisclosed feature is necessarily present in the prior art.
To learn more:
To learn more: