obviousness

When is Patent Prior Art Distinct but Not Different?

Where distinct physical concepts recited in a patent claim and applied prior art are related and can achieve same results, do not count on being able to distinguish teachings of the prior art.  In Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd… Read More

Reversal of Parts Not Obvious in the Absence of Supporting Evidence

The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that the Examiner had not established a prima facie case of obviousness by failing to adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have made the proposed modification in Ex parte T… Read More

Examiner’s Redundancy Rationale was Insufficient to Support Obviousness Rejection

The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that, since the primary reference already taught fastening an element with screws, the Examiner failed to adequately show that one would have also fastened the element with a spring eleme… Read More

CAFC Finds Proposed Claim Construction Unsupported by Disclosure

The Federal Circuit in Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle, Inc. (Appeal No. 2017-1290, Fed. Cir., decided March 13, 2018) rejected the patent owner’s claim construction as impermissibly restricting the claim term to a specific embodi… Read More

Obviousness Update in January 2018 MPEP Revision

An updated version of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) was published in January 2018 and does make one noteworthy change regarding MPEP §2143.01V titled “The Proposed Modification Cannot Change the Principle of O… Read More