Intellectual Property Forums


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

        
        
(Message started by: wade on Nov 21^st, 2007, 8:40am)

Title: questions about 103 rejection
Post by wade on Nov 21^st, 2007, 8:40am

i have looked through some case's filewrappers, and found that a major of the applicant use the "all limitation" rule to overcome the 103 rejection.
and i want to know that the claim is non-obviousness as long as all the limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the reference or the combination of the reference documents?
for example, a claim claims a device comprising A, B, C and D. The examiner found two reference documents to reject the claim under 103. but we found that reference 1 discloses A, B, and C ,but not D. reference 2 dose not disclose D too, so can we get a result that the claim is non-obviousness?
i am doubted because the remarks did not mention the "movitation to combine" at all, does'nt a movitation be needed in 103 rejection?
thanks

Title: Re: questions about 103 rejection
Post by patentsusa on Jan 5^th, 2008, 12:08am

KSR v Teleflex has changed the standards:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_11_6.htm#cfr37s11.6

The Graham test controls, Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation is not the exclusive test.

The USPTO training materials that discuss KSR are also helpful to practitioners.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr57526.pdf

Title: Re: questions about 103 rejection
Post by asdf on Jan 5^th, 2008, 3:44pm

11.6 appears to relate to noncitizens attempting to become registered practitioners.