What is the legal precedent for rearrangement of parts in patent claims?

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 rearrangement of parts in patent claims is established in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). This section cites the following case:

“The particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” – In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)

This precedent suggests that the mere rearrangement of parts is generally not considered patentable unless it modifies the operation of the device or produces a new and unexpected result. Patent examiners may use this rationale to reject claims that only involve rearranging known elements without demonstrating a significant improvement or unexpected outcome.

When considering the rearrangement of parts in a patent application, it’s important to demonstrate how the specific arrangement solves a particular problem or provides an unexpected advantage that would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.