16.05.2014 Views

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

Patent It Yourself - PDF Archive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

362 | <strong>Patent</strong> it YOURSELF<br />

Part I—General Arguments Against Obviousness (continued)<br />

20. Competitive Recognition: The invention has been copied<br />

by an infringer; moreover, the infringer has made laudatory<br />

statements about it, or has admitted it is unobvious.<br />

21. Contrarian Invention: The invention is contrary to the<br />

teachings of the prior art—that is, the invention goes<br />

against the grain of what the prior art teaches.<br />

22. Strained Interpretation: The examiner has made a<br />

strained interpretation of the reference that could be<br />

made only by hindsight.<br />

23. Paper <strong>Patent</strong>: The reference is a “paper patent”—that<br />

is, it was never implemented or commercialized and<br />

therefore should be construed narrowly. (Don’t use if<br />

reference completely anticipates your invention.)<br />

24. New Principle of Operation: The invention utilizes a new<br />

principle of operation. Applicant has blazed a trail, rather<br />

than followed one.<br />

25. Inability of Competitors: Competitors were unable to<br />

copy the invention until they were able to learn its details<br />

through a publication or reverse engineering a commercial<br />

model; this indicates unobviousness.<br />

26. Nonanalogous Art: The reference is from so different a field<br />

that it would not have commended itself to an inventor’s<br />

attention when considering the invention as a whole. MPEP<br />

2141.01.<br />

27. No Convincing Reasoning: The examiner has not presented<br />

a convincing line of reasoning as to why the claimed subject<br />

matter as a whole, including its differences over the prior<br />

art, would have been obvious.<br />

28. Reference Is Nonanalogous Art or Isn’t Pertinent to<br />

the Problem Applicant Has Solved: If a cited reference is<br />

nonanalogous or is directed to a different problem, this<br />

weighs against its use in a rejection. MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.05.<br />

Part II—Arguments Also Used When Combination of References Applied<br />

29. Unsuggested Combination: The prior-art references<br />

do not contain any suggestion (express or implied) that<br />

they be combined, or that they be combined in the<br />

manner suggested. In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held<br />

that that an invention should not be held obvious over<br />

several prior-art references unless there is a suggestion,<br />

motivation, or teaching that the references can or should<br />

be combined. MPEP 2143.<br />

30. References Are Individually Complete: Each reference<br />

is complete and functional in itself, so there would be no<br />

reason to use parts from or add or substitute parts to any<br />

reference.<br />

31. References Take Different Approaches: The references<br />

take mutually exclusive paths and reach different solutions<br />

to a similar problem. Since they teach away from<br />

each other, it would not be logical to combine them.<br />

32. References Teach Away: The references themselves teach<br />

away (expressly or by implication) from the suggested<br />

combination.<br />

33. Reference Is From Different Field: One reference is from<br />

a very different technical field than that of the invention—<br />

that is, it’s “nonanalogous art.” MPEP 707.07(f)<br />

34. Impossible to Combine: Those skilled in the art would<br />

find it physically impossible to combine the references in<br />

the manner suggested.<br />

35. Inoperative Combination: If they could be combined, the<br />

refer ences would produce an inoperative combination.<br />

36. Modifications Necessary: <strong>It</strong> would be necessary to make<br />

modifications, not taught in the prior art, in order to<br />

combine the references in the manner suggested.<br />

37. Mutually Exclusive Paths: The references can’t be legally<br />

combined because they take mutually exclusive paths to<br />

reach different solutions to a problem, and, therefore, by<br />

implication each teaches away from combining itself with<br />

the other.<br />

38. Claimed Features Lacking: Even if combined, the<br />

references would not meet the claims.<br />

39. Synergism: The whole (that is—the result achieved by the<br />

invention) is greater than the sum of its parts (that is—the<br />

respective results of the individual references).<br />

40. Multiplicity of Steps Required: The combination<br />

suggested requires a series of separate, awkward<br />

combinative steps that are too involved to be considered<br />

obvious.<br />

41. Multiplicity of References: The fact that a large number<br />

of references (over three) must be combined to meet the<br />

invention is evidence of unobviousness.<br />

42. Intended Function Destroyed: The references are<br />

not legally combinable since doing so will destroy the<br />

intended function(s) of at least one of the references.<br />

Fig. 13D—Arguments Against Obviousness Rejections (Part II)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!