What is the legal precedent for making elements integral in patent law?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 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 legal precedent for making elements integral in patent law is established in MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) . This section states: “ The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. ” – In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) This precedent suggests that making separate pieces integral is generally not considered inventive unless it produces a new and unexpected result. Examiners may use this rationale to reject claims that merely integrate known elements without demonstrating a significant improvement or unexpected outcome. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Office Personnel May Use Legal Precedent for Obviousness Rejections MPEP 2144 Permitted Examiner May Use Legal Precedent for Rationale MPEP 2144.04 Permitted One Piece vs Multiple Parts Is Obvious Engineering Choice MPEP 2144.04 Use of Legal Precedent for Obviousness Rejection MPEP 2144.04 Rationale for Modifying Prior Art Not Required to be Explicitly Stated MPEP 2144 Required Examiner Must Explain Legal Precedent Rationale MPEP 2144.04 Required Rationale for Combining Prior Art Elements Broadly Applicable MPEP 2144 Arrangement of Upper Body Not Taught by Prior Art MPEP 2144.04 Innovative One-Piece Design Overcomes Prior Art Resonance Issues MPEP 2144.04 Removable Cap for Prior Art Holder MPEP 2144.04 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How do aesthetic design changes affect patentability? How does automating a manual activity affect patentability? When is the elimination of an element or step considered obvious? What is the significance of legal precedent in patent examination? What ...