Intellectual Property Forums


    
      
        Intellectual Property Forums
        (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)
      

        
        
(Message started by: Larry Stell on Apr 14^th, 2006, 12:12pm)

Title: A in view of B makes it obvious?
Post by Larry Stell on Apr 14^th, 2006, 12:12pm

I have a question. I recently received a rejection for my patent under 103. The examiner says A in view of B.

Does this literally mean, a person with A, viewing B, it would suggest or motivate to combine etc etc?

Or can it mean, having both in front of you, is there a suggestion to combine? Can it mean, if a person, looking at B, sees A?

It is just that B is not concerned with my invention at all, in fact A has a step before my invention, but looking at B would not help him. But if someone had B, looking at A, then there might be something.

Title: Re: A in view of B makes it obvious?
Post by Isaac on Apr 14^th, 2006, 12:32pm

Generally what it means is that all of the elements of the invention are taught in A and B, and that there is motivation to modify the teachings of A with B to reach what is claimed.

The motivation to combine might be in either A or B, but it does not have to be in those references although when it is so found, the case for obviousness is strongest. The Examiner does have to show motivation, but motivation can come from the prior art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, or from the problem to be solved.

Title: Re: A in view of B makes it obvious?
Post by TataBoxInhibitor on May 5^th, 2006, 10:41am

Well said. There must a motivation or suggestion to combine the pieces of prior art or to modify. Usually there are two or more references for an obviousness rejetion, though, sometimes I only get one.

After this combo or modification to make your invention obvious, there must also be a reasonable likelihood of success and it must teach ALL the limitations.