Is the ability to combine references sufficient to establish obviousness?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-29 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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 mere fact that references can be combined or modified is not sufficient to establish obviousness. As stated in MPEP 2143.01 , “The mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” This principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., which emphasizes that obviousness requires more than just the ability to combine prior art elements. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Implicit Motivation to Combine Prior Art References MPEP 2143 Implicit Motivation to Combine References Is Allowed MPEP 2143 Inventor’s Motivation to Combine Prior Art Required MPEP 2143 Motivation to Combine Prior Art Must Exist MPEP 2143 Motivation to Combine References Recognizing Result-Effective Variables MPEP 2143 Permitted Implicit Motivation to Combine References Exists MPEP 2143 Motivation to Combine References Is Implicit MPEP 2143 Motivation for Combining Prior Art Elements Required MPEP 2143 Motivation to Combine Under KSR Is Sufficient MPEP 2143 Required Combining Prior Art Elements Is Predictable MPEP 2143 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How should conflicting teachings in prior art references be handled? What is the significance of the &#8220;intended purpose&#8221; of prior art in obviousness determinations? How does the &#8220;proposed modification cannot change the principle of operation&#8221; affect obviousness determinations? What is the significance of &#8220;proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose&#8221;? What is the test for obviousn...