How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for different types of inventions?
How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for different types of inventions?
The USPTO’s approach to allegations of unexpected results can vary depending on the type of invention. According to MPEP 716.02:
For chemical inventions: Unexpected results are often demonstrated through comparative tests. The MPEP states, 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.
For mechanical inventions: Unexpected results may be less common but can still be relevant. The MPEP notes, The mere fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.
For biotechnology inventions: Unexpected results can be particularly important due to the unpredictability of the field. The MPEP advises, The evidence relied upon should establish ‘that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.’
In all cases, the USPTO emphasizes that the alleged unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
To learn more: