Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[69Camaro]

All:

What is the case law or MPEP reading on this subject?  For example, I am about to write an application which calls for a plurality of widgets included in a gizmo that does x.  There is no inventive reason for the plurality.  The client wants it worded that way.  However, there is a reference very similar to my client's invention that calls for one widget included in a similar gizmo that does the majority of x. 

Does anyone know the case law or some MPEP citation regarding this?  Thanks.

69C

[Wiscagent]

If the application will claim a plurality of widgets included in a gizmo that does X, and your concern is patentability; then there is certainly the potential for the claim to be obvious over the prior art.  In general, if one gizmo is known to do the job, then it would have been obvious that two gizmos can do the job.

But there may be a non-obvious aspects to using more than one gizmo.  Are the gizmos somehow integrated or connected?  Does having a plurality of gizmos require some new control means?  Do the plurality of gizmos result in an unexpected advantage?

There is a large body of case law related to obviousness; this web site and in Patently-O have discussions on some recent court cases.

[Wolfcastle]

I've had an examiner cite In re Harza to reject a plurality as being obvious in view of a single. The case is also referred to somewhere in the MPEP...chapter 2100 I believe.