“Obviousness” – Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 USC 103(a) “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”
- Combining references – there must be some motivation to combine; the suggestion does not have to be explicit; the reason the reference suggests for combining can be different from the actual reason
- Invention as a whole must be considered; not an element by element analysis
- Objective Considerations – affidavits or declarations containing evidence of: commercial success, unexpected results, failure of others, long felt need, skepticism of experts, copying by others
- 102(e, f, g) cannot be used as a reference (New AIPA) for obviousness when the reference subject matter and the patent app subject matter were owned by the same person or assignable to the same entity at the time invention was made
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
On the exam: Prior art exclusion 103(c). “Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title [35 USC 102], shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.”
A 103 ref is applied against my claims. It is a PCT, published on March 8, 2001, priority to September 1, 1999, filed on August 24, 2000. Inventors are BILL and TED.
My application was filed as a PCT on March 6. 2003, with priority to a US application filed on March 7, 2002. Inventors are BILL and TED.
Question: is the 103 rejection proper? Why or why not?
I would say the 103 rejection is not proper, since the inventors are the same. (Someone please correct me if this is wrong!)
to Lucifer Johnsonville,
the PCT pbulication iteself is NOT a qualified 102 prior art against your app.
the 102 reference dates of the PCT
(a) March 8, 2001, but not by another, so disqualifed
(b) March 8, 2001, but within one year from March 7, 2002, so disqualifed
(c) n/a
(d) n/a
(e) n/a because it is filed before November 29, 2000
(f) n/a
(g) n/a
Only if the prior art qualifies under 102 e, f, or g. See 103(c). I don’t think Lucifer’s question has enough information.
Does anyone know if the KSR ruling is tested on the exam? If it is, does anyone have any examples?
I got KSR questions. The interim guidelines have everything.
I can’t recall the questions, but one required knowledge of the KSR factors, and another asked about the continued applicability of Graham — t/s/m.
It is pretty straightforward
Can a summary of the relevant interim KSR guidelines be found anywhere on this site?