How does the concept of “Art Recognized Equivalence” apply to mechanical inventions?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The concept of “Art Recognized Equivalence” applies to mechanical inventions in much the same way as it does to chemical compositions. According to MPEP 2144.06, the principle can be applied to functional or mechanical equivalents. However, it’s important to note:

“The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components.”

This means that for mechanical inventions, the equivalence must be recognized in the prior art or be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The equivalence cannot be based solely on the applicant’s disclosure or the fact that components perform similar functions. For example, if two different mechanical components are known in the prior art to perform the same function in a similar type of device, an examiner might argue that substituting one for the other would be obvious under the principle of art recognized equivalence.