Broadly Interpreting References
We received a question about an Examiner broadly interpreting the prior art by generalizing its teachings and then applying a species within the generalized teachings… Read More »Broadly Interpreting References
Obviousness
USPTO（米国特許商標庁）への日本式反論
自明性の拒絶に対して日本式の反論を行っても、USPTO（米国特許商標庁）では多くの場合上手くいきません。理由を説明します。
まず、米国の特許審査には次の手順があります。「当該クレームが先行技術に照らして自明である理由を示す一応の証拠を特許審査官がはじめに示す。［そこで］立証責任が［出願人に］移り、出願人が証拠を提出するかまたは反論する。」MPEP 2142（ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1365–66, 117 USPQ2d 1951, 1553-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)引用）。
Read More »USPTO（米国特許商標庁）への日本式反論Nodal, Session 3, Follow-Up
Nodal, Session 3, considered the rejection under 35 USC 101 in PTAB Appeal No. 2020-006023. Viewers will know we recommended amending Claim 1 to incorporate… Read More »Nodal, Session 3, Follow-Up
Single-Reference Obviousness Rejections
We previously discussed “broadest reasonable interpretation” claim construction as featured in, but distinct from, obviousness rejections. Let’s consider one uncommon situation that clarifies this distinction.… Read More »Single-Reference Obviousness Rejections
Role of BRI in Anticipation and Obviousness
Anticipation generally requires one reference disclose all elements of a claim. (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in… Read More »Role of BRI in Anticipation and Obviousness
自明性に対する不採算的反論
米国以外の出願人による反論に、次の類があります。「審査官による先行技術の組合せが自明に思えた場合でも、実際は自明ではなかったであろう。その理由は、先行技術の組合せでは、～という特別な効果を得ることができないためである。」
Read More »自明性に対する不採算的反論Reverse Economic Arguments Against Obviousness
Sometimes, non-US applicants will argue, “even assuming the Examiner’s proposed combination of prior art appears obvious, the proposed combination actually would not have been obvious. … Read More »Reverse Economic Arguments Against Obviousness