The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 26th, 2019, 8:09am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Novelty
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   "doesn't teach" and "doesn't teach
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: "doesn't teach" and "doesn't teach  (Read 2465 times)
wade
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 25
"doesn't teach" and "doesn't teach
« on: Jun 26th, 2007, 8:57am »
Quote Quote Modify 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 Quote Modify 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 (198Cool.
 
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. 198Cool; 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 Quote Modify 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 Quote Modify 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 Quote Modify 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
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board