APPEALING THE EXAMINER REJECTION

Introduction I recently published a blog regarding the frustrating but common rejection of a patent application based upon the examiner asserting that the invention is obvious.  See  Overcoming an Obviousness Rejection.  Depending upon the individual circumstances, it may be worthwhile for appealing the examiner rejection.   Recall obviousness under 35 U.S.C. section 103 can be a subjective exercise or…

Read More →

103 Obviousness Rejections II

Introduction I am following up on my recent post Section 103 Obviousness Rejections pertaining to the 2018 USPTO Guidelines issued to USPTO examiner.  Recall that in 2007, the US Supreme Court broadened the basis for an examiner to reject a claim of a patent application on the assertion that the development subject of the claim was obvious…

Read More →

Section 103 Obviousness Rejections

Introduction Continuing with my discussion yesterday regarding rejection of patent applications based upon the examiner’s assertion that the claimed development is obvious, I am exploring the USPTO updated guidance to examiners published in early 2018.  An invention can not be patented if the development would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at…

Read More →

Non-Analogous Art Can’t be Obvious

Introduction Many of my recent posts have been concerned with whether a development is eligible for patent protection.  This is a Section 101 question.  Recall that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas without more are not eligible for patent protection.  Other hurdles of patenting are whether the development is novel (Section 102) or whether the development…

Read More →