What constitutes ‘unexpected results’ in patent law?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-10 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. ‘Unexpected results’ in patent law refer to properties or outcomes of an invention that are surprising or unanticipated based on the prior art. The MPEP states: Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. ( MPEP 716.02 ) To be considered evidence of nonobviousness, unexpected results should be: Significant and practical, not just statistically different Commensurate in scope with the claimed invention Compared against the closest prior art Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Difference in Properties Must Be Unexpected MPEP 716.02 Permitted Declaration Can Replace Affidavit in Patent Applications MPEP 716 Difference of Kind Not Degree MPEP 716.02 Difference Not Unexpected for Antidepressants MPEP 716.02 Publications May Serve as Evidence for Facts at Issue MPEP 716 Recommended Oath or Declaration Required for Traversing Rejections MPEP 716 Required Primary Examiner Must Review Evidence to Overcome Rejection MPEP 716 Affidavits Must Be Made Under Oath MPEP 716 Declaration Must Acknowledge False Statements MPEP 716 Required Declaration Must Acknowledge Truthfulness of Statements MPEP 716 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How should applicants present comparative data to support claims of unexpected results? How does the USPTO evaluate evidence of unexpected results in patent applications? How does the USPTO handle allegations of unexpected results for different types of inventions? How can an applicant demonstrate unexpected results in a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit? C...