|
|
Author |
Topic: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't teach (Read 3807 times) |
|
wade
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
 |
"doesn't teach" and "doesn't teach
« on: Jun 26th, 2007, 8:57am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Dear all
when responsing OA, we often use "doesn't teach" or "doesn't teach or suggest". for example, "applicant asserts that reference A doesn't teach Element B" or "applicant asserts that reference A doesn't teach or suggest Element B". My question is what's the difference between them?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
pentazole
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
|
Re: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't te
« Reply #1 on: Jun 26th, 2007, 9:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
The standard for anticipation rejections is that every element of a claim has to be "taught" by the reference (unless shown to be inherent.) So a reference has to explicitly provide every element of the claim within it.
To anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single source must contain all of the elements of the claim. Lewmar Marine Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744, 747, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766, 1768 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1007 (198 .
Missing elements may not be supplied by the knowledge of one skilled in the art or the disclosure of another reference. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 U.S.P.Q. 773, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
On the other hand, obviousness rejections do not require every element to be explicitly described in the reference. Example, you patent a coating that has silica filler in it as reinforcement filler. Someone tries to patent the same coating using alumina instead. They won't be anticipated by you because you don't teach the use of alumina, but they will be obviated by you because you use silica as a reinforcement filler, which would suggest to someone skilled in the art to also use alumina since both silica and alumina can be used as reinforcement fillers imparting similar properties to a composition.
Thus answering a 103 rejection, if the reference does not teach every element of your claim is not enough for you to determine non-obviousness, the reference must not suggest it either. Hence the response "does not teach nor suggest."
For an obviousness rejection to be proper, the Examiner must meet the burden of establishing that [...] the prior art relied upon, coupled with knowledge generally available in the art at the time of the invention, must contain some suggestion or incentive that would have motivated the skilled artisan to modify a reference or combined references; and that the proposed modification of the prior art must have had a reasonable expectation of success, determined from the vantage point of the skilled artisan at the time the invention was make. In re Fine, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 198; Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceuticals Co., 927 U.S.P.Q.2d, 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
wade
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
|
Re: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't te
« Reply #2 on: Jun 26th, 2007, 9:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
thank you , pentazole
and here "teach" is "disclose"? and "suggest" maybe consider "indirect disclose"?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
|
Re: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't te
« Reply #3 on: Jun 26th, 2007, 11:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 26th, 2007, 9:30am, pentazole wrote:| The standard for anticipation rejections is that every element of a claim has to be "taught" by the reference (unless shown to be inherent.) So a reference has to explicitly provide every element of the claim within it. |
|
I wouldn't use teach or suggest in quite this way. I think teach and suggest are both broader terms than "disclose". Anticipation requires that a feature be disclosed explicitly or inherently in the reference. On the other hand a reference that discloses one thing might teach or suggest something more to someone skilled in the art.
But from the standpoint of responding to an office action, there is probably no problem with using "teach" interchangeably with "disclose" when addressing a 102 rejection. If the reference doesn't teach something, it certainly doesn't disclose it either.
As a side note, there's probably no point in quoting cases for the motivation to combine requirement anymore. That isn't good law...
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2007, 11:27am by Isaac » |
IP Logged |
Isaac
|
|
|
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
Posts: 456
|
|
Re: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't te
« Reply #4 on: Jun 26th, 2007, 11:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
I do not use those terms in 102 responses, and I do not think an examiner has ever written an 102 action which included them, to me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print