Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2007/week45/patgide.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:29:38+00:00

Document:
provide an appropriate supporting rationale.
DATES: These guidelines are effective October 10, 2007.
Patent Examination Policy. Alternatively, mail may be addressed to Ms.
of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v.
consistent with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court.
the substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable.
is neither appealable nor petitionable.
suggestion-motivation test" in arriving at the finding of obviousness.
motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way.
should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve;"
risk of courts and patent examiners falling prey to hindsight bias"
factfinders recourse to common sense."
[that] illustrate this doctrine." (1) "In United States v.
beyond his or her skill.
for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v.
(3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
the evidence is dispositive of the issue of obviousness.
prompt resolution of issues pertinent to patentability.
determine what to search for and where to search.
trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C.
to  901.06(d) and  2121 to  2129.
both the invention and the prior art as a whole.
used as a partial basis for a resolution of the issue of obviousness.
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
one of ordinary skill in the art.
rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.
invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
may be applied to find obviousness in such cases.
rationales set forth below support a conclusion of obviousness.
obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does."
Example 1: The claimed invention in Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc.
convenience, did not produce a `new' or `different function'"
combination would have been obvious.
have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Example 2: The claimed invention in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co.
screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations.
foundation to the load-bearing member."
anchor (asshown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations.
the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
need not be present to render such substitution obvious."
such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable.
would be successful for synthesis of proteins.
forth above in Example 2 in subsection III.A.
predictable result of transferring the load.
opening along its fourth edge.
of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.'"
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a "comparable"
ordinary skill in the art.
pre-established threshold level for more than a very brief period."
disabling the inverter by means of a cutoff switch.
obvious to one of ordinary skill.
at references relating to possible solutions to that problem.
claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
would put a numerical category code on each check or deposit slip.
magnetic ink, just as it did for amount and account information.
customers that are broken down to give subtotals for each category.
records for transactions and for posting to the appropriate accounts.
such as the monthly statement sent to checking account customers.
as opposed to only allowing reporting by account number.
render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art."
above in Example 1 in subsection III.C.
better manufacturing properties (e.g., reduced "stickiness").
pharmaceutically acceptable salts to be tested for improved properties.
to form "a reasonable expectation of success."
specifically mention its applicability to oxybutynin.
its ability to bind to a specified protein.
the polypeptide, or the claimed isolated nucleic acid molecule.
of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
prior art in a predictable manner to result in the claimed invention.
forth above in Example 1 in subsection III.D.
nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art."
Example 2: The claimed invention in Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc.
position of the letter in the sequence of letter.
and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
that is commonly available and understood in the art (the SSR)."
been commonplace in recent years."
Example 3: The claimed invention in KSR International Co. v.
which kept the pivot point fixed when adjusting the pedal.
electronic sensor on the pedal support structure.
communication network up to a pre-set maximum sub-credit limit.
credit via a consumer electronics device.
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.
claims patentable over any applied references.
believes the Office has erred substantively as to the factual findings.
and make the next Office action final. See MPEP  706.07(a).
(3) the results of the claimed combination were unexpected.
 550 U.S.  - , 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
decisions will retain their viability.
 KSR, 550 U.S. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1391.
 Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
 Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
 Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96.
 Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
 Id. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467.
Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969).
rejection, and should not be construed as dictating any particular format.
 See MPEP  904 (8th edition, revision 5, August 2006).
(Fed. Cir. 2005) and MPEP  2111.
one." (Emphasis added) 550 U.S. at - , 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem."
be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references.").
 In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed.
807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Envtl.
 KSR, 550 U.S. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
 KSR, 550 U.S. at - , 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
 Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976).
Bergel, 292 F.2d 955, 956-57, 130 USPQ 206, 207-08 (1961)).
in many cases." Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
as laid down in Graham. Id. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1395-97.
 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
 KSR, 550 U.S. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc.
U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969).
 Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
electrodes. Id. at 42-43, 50-52, 148 USPQ at 480, 483.
 KSR, 550 U.S. at  - , 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
 Id. at 1276, 69 USPQ2d at 1691.
 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
 Id. at 301, 213 USPQ at 536.
 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
 Id. at 903, 7 USPQ2d at 1681.
 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
 Id. at 1402, 7 USPQ2d at 1501.
 Id. at 1403, 7 USPQ2d at 1502.
 Id. at 1277, 69 USPQ2d at 1691.
 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976).
 Id. at 222, 189 USPQ at 259.
 Id. at 230, 189 USPQ at 261.
 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
 464 F.3d 1286, 80 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
 Id. at 229, 189 USPQ at 261.
 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
 550 U.S. - , 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
 Id. at - , 82 USPQ2d at 1399.
 83 USPQ2d 1569 )Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.
 Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
 Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651.
 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467.
14 USPQ2d 1741, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.