Topic: "it's not in art, but it's obvious b/c on oski would want do it in order to Y" (Read 306 times)

jamesRQuestion · « **on:** 07-24-11 at 04:19 pm »

I have a rejection in which the Examiner admits that a claimed feature is not taught in any of the cited art but simply says that <claimed feature> obvious because one would want <result that comes from performing the claimed feature>. It seems to me that this isn't enough - shouldn't the Examiner at least take official notice? Is there any MPEP citation that would be appropriate for traversing this rejection?

khazzah · « **Reply #1 on:** 07-25-11 at 07:56 am »

Your question sounds like discussion we had earlier on this thread:

http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,14962.0.html

The Intellectual Property Forum

News:

Author Topic: "it's not in art, but it's obvious b/c on oski would want do it in order to Y" (Read 306 times)

jamesRQuestion

"it's not in art, but it's obvious b/c on oski would want do it in order to Y"

khazzah

Re: "it's not in art, but it's obvious b/c on oski would want do it in order to Y"

Footer

www.intelproplaw.com
Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:

iKnight Technologies Inc.
www.intelproplaw.com