Source: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/803.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-27 08:04:37
Document Index: 99319696

Matched Legal Cases: ['§802', '§803', '§ 808', '§ 803', '§ 806', '§ 806', '§ 808']

MPEP 803: Restriction — When Proper, Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
Restriction — When Proper
Previous: §802.02 | Next: §803.01
803 Restriction — When Proper [R-08.2017]
I. CRITERIA FOR RESTRICTION BETWEEN PATENTABLY DISTINCT INVENTIONS
Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.
Where plural inventions are capable of being viewed as related in two ways, both applicable criteria for distinctness must be demonstrated to support a restriction requirement.
If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm’r Pat. 1978).
For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to genus-species, see MPEP § 806.04 - § 806.04(i) and § 808.01(a).