Re: Arguing unobviousness - best line of reasoning
« Reply #11 on: Jul 5th, 2007, 12:35pm »
guess it does. just needs some time to settle...
lets see whether I got it:
in order to argue unobviousness, I would demonstrate to the examiner that the teachings of his references are not sufficient to reach my claimed mechanism. I would never "develop my mechanism" back or relate it to the references.
so, sth like:
My invention is not obvious from ref A in view of B because
- Ref B does not teach or suggest to cut out sub-structure B' from its disclosed mechanism
- Assuming it does (which it does not), ref B does not teach or suggest to employ B' in ref A
- Assuming it does, ref B does not teach or suggest how to connect B' with A
- Assuming it does, the result is an inoperable mechanism which does not have the limitations of my claimed mechanism
- To make this thing operable again, you need to remove certain elements. There are hundreds of possibilities to make it operable again, but ref B does not teach what to remove and how
- Therefore, it is not obvious...
this way, I guess I can completely avoid talking about my invention. is that it? thanks again....