The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 6th, 2019, 6:29am

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Obviousness
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Ignored 103 rejection
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Ignored 103 rejection  (Read 777 times)
jib
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 2
Ignored 103 rejection
« on: Apr 30th, 2007, 10:33am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I am reviewing the prosecution history of a patent.  The examiner made an obviousness rejection, stating that a couple items would be obvious in the art, in addition to a double patenting rejection.  The Applicant did not address the obviousness rejection at all in response, but the claims issued anyway.
 
Does the Applicant's silence show acquiescence with the Examiners statement of what was obvious?  Is there any case law that points to this?
 
I know that silence cannot be used to estop a patent holder from extending the equivalents for an infringement argument.
 
Thanks.
IP Logged
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: Ignored 103 rejection
« Reply #1 on: Apr 30th, 2007, 1:17pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Apr 30th, 2007, 10:33am, jib wrote:
I am reviewing the prosecution history of a patent.  The examiner made an obviousness rejection, stating that a couple items would be obvious in the art, in addition to a double patenting rejection.  The Applicant did not address the obviousness rejection at all in response, but the claims issued anyway.
 
Does the Applicant's silence show acquiescence with the Examiners statement of what was obvious?  Is there any case law that points to this?

 
Not necessarily, but there is a presumption that any narrowing amendment or canceling of claims was for patentability reasons unless the prosecution history suggests otherwise.
 
Quote:
I know that silence cannot be used to estop a patent holder from extending the equivalents for an infringement argument.

 
There may be some words in the MPEP to that effect, but, but it ain't so IMO.
IP Logged

Isaac
jib
Newbie
*




   


Posts: 2
Re: Ignored 103 rejection
« Reply #2 on: Apr 30th, 2007, 1:31pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Thanks.  I appreciate it.
 
JIB
IP Logged
Pages: 1  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