Comments on: Q) Obviousness http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 22 May 2012 00:33:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: RT http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-41166 RT Fri, 11 May 2012 16:36:54 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-41166 Got it 5-10-12 Got it 5-10-12

]]> By: zan http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-38689 zan Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:16:29 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-38689 Is it 103 only? Is it 103 only?

]]> By: MT http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-32636 MT Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:42:06 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-32636 Did not pass by 3%...under the MPEP 2131.03 III, it is only 103. However, in the current practice by the examiner, 102 is applied more broadly. Recent case, Clearvalue Inc. et al v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., seems to support this. I suppose this questions lacks one fundamental issue that there is any unexpected result obtained after 34.9%. Otherwise the question should give credits to all answered ones. Did not pass by 3%…under the MPEP 2131.03 III, it is only 103. However, in the current practice by the examiner, 102 is applied more broadly. Recent case, Clearvalue Inc. et al v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., seems to support this. I suppose this questions lacks one fundamental issue that there is any unexpected result obtained after 34.9%. Otherwise the question should give credits to all answered ones.

]]> By: maalva http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-29821 maalva Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:47:35 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-29821 thanks Alfredo, any other advise you have?? I take mine soon. thanks Alfredo, any other advise you have?? I take mine soon.

]]> By: Alfredo http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-29812 Alfredo Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:30:42 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-29812 Got a variant on this 1/23/12 Prior art had 2 components with a range from 30-34.9% and 60.1-65% or something like that. Applicant claims component with 35% and 60%. No promises answer were in this order 1. Examiner can reject on 102 only 2. Examiner can reject on 103 only 3. Examiner can reject on 102 and 103 4.? 5.? I went with "103 only" because 35 and 60 weren't strictly anticipated but close enough so PHOSITA would expect no change in properties (KSR) to make it obvious. Passed. Got a variant on this 1/23/12
Prior art had 2 components with a range from 30-34.9% and 60.1-65% or something like that. Applicant claims component with 35% and 60%.

No promises answer were in this order
1. Examiner can reject on 102 only
2. Examiner can reject on 103 only
3. Examiner can reject on 102 and 103
4.?
5.?

I went with “103 only” because 35 and 60 weren’t strictly anticipated but close enough so PHOSITA would expect no change in properties (KSR) to make it obvious.

Passed.

]]> By: Remanded http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-29521 Remanded Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:47:00 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-29521 Saw this question 20 January 2012. Saw this question 20 January 2012.

]]> By: Ken http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-17120 Ken Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:03:18 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-17120 Got this or very similar question on 10/8. I also got at least 10 very general obviousness questions. Know this topic like the back of your hand. Got this or very similar question on 10/8.

I also got at least 10 very general obviousness questions. Know this topic like the back of your hand.

]]> By: Axo http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-12701 Axo Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:09:49 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-12701 Got it 6/28/11. Got it 6/28/11.

]]> By: ohsoobvious http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-11528 ohsoobvious Wed, 25 May 2011 18:58:34 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-11528 had this on 5/18/11 too had this on 5/18/11 too

]]> By: Sarah http://mypatentbar.com/2008/09/04/q-obviousness/#comment-10996 Sarah Wed, 18 May 2011 20:36:48 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=828#comment-10996 Got this question today 5/18/11. Easy point. Got this question today 5/18/11.

Easy point.

]]>