Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: Obviousness Rejection  (Read 2111 times)


  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Obviousness Rejection
« on: 03-25-11 at 02:11 pm »

Has anyone ever received a 103 based on three references wherein "it would have been obvious to combine two references" and "modify the same" references?  Doesn't sound right.  In this case the only distinction is a range of pressure over the combination of the two references.   The Examiner indicated that it would have been obvious to modify the pressure of the combination to include applicant's range.

NJ Patent1

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1776
    • View Profile
Re: Obviousness Rejection
« Reply #1 on: 07-27-11 at 03:45 pm »

TataBox:  Yes I have.  I assume that ranges do not tough or overlap, otherwise the Examiner would have jumped on that.  Unfortunately, I've come across case law standing for the proposition that the prior art need only point out that a particular variable is "important" and would be optimized as a matter or routine.  Having said that, does the reference in any way suggest that the pressures therein disclosed were not just picked out of the sky?  Also, if a chem reaction is involved, you might be able to argue that lower / higher pressures are in someway counterinuitive.  This need not rise to the level of a full-blown "teaching away".  You only need a plausible argument that the Examiner's assertion doesn't have a basis in the art. 


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 20 queries.