1 / 77

The Benefits of Establishing a Prima Facie Case under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The Benefits of Establishing a Prima Facie Case under 35 U.S.C. § 103. USPTO Refresher Training. Objectives. You will be reviewing the following topics: I. An Overview of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 II. The State of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

dom
Télécharger la présentation

The Benefits of Establishing a Prima Facie Case under 35 U.S.C. § 103

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Benefits of Establishing a Prima Facie Case under 35 U.S.C. § 103 USPTO Refresher Training

  2. Objectives You will be reviewing the following topics: I. An Overview of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 II. The State of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 III. Benefits of Establishing an Effective Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  3. I. An Overview of Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103

  4. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Conditions for Patentability: Non-obvious Subject Matter (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  5. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Factors to be considered when analyzing prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 were articulated by the Supreme Court in a 1966 decision, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  6. Graham v. John Deere Inquiries • What is the scope and content of the prior art? • What are the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention? • What is the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made? • Does any objective evidence of nonobviousness exist? Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  7. Inquiry One: Determining the Scope and Content of the Prior Art Determining the scope and content of the prior art requires an understanding of what is actually disclosed by the reference as well as an understanding of the technology underlying the subject matter of the reference. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  8. Inquiry Two: Determining the Differences between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention Before a determination of how the claimed invention differs from the prior art can be made, there must be a clear understanding of both the claimed invention as well as of the invention disclosed by the reference. Such an understanding must be made of the claimed invention as a whole. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  9. Inquiry Three: Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of the Invention • One of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have understood the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art when the invention was made. • Specifying a particular level of skill is not necessary where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. • Ascertaining level of ordinary skill is necessary to maintain objectivity. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  10. Factors to Consider in Determining the Level of Ordinary Skill Include: (1) The educational level of the inventor; (2) Type of problems encountered in the art; (3) Prior art solutions to those problems; (4) Rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) Sophistication of the technology; and (6) Educational level of active workers in the field. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  11. Making a 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection Once these factors have been considered, any rejection made must address findings of fact as to the disclosures in the references used together with a rationale for combining or modifying the references. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  12. Making a 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection (cont.) A key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the appropriate findings of fact and reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  13. Articulate the Appropriate Findings of Fact As a review: The finding of facts relate to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time the invention was made. The source of findings of fact may be patents, non-patent literature, applicant’s admission of prior art, general knowledge of those in the art, or common sense. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  14. II. The State of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 View Points of the Examiner and the Applicant

  15. What Applicant Would like to See Included in a More Detailed Office Action • Claim elements mapped to specific disclosures in the prior art. • All elements addressed. • The technology underlying both the claimed invention and that of the prior art understood . • Determination of what is actually disclosed by the prior art. • Response to technical arguments made in Applicant’s reply to art rejections. • Early identification of patentable subject matter • A detailed explanation provided by the Examiner regarding the combination used in the rejection. • Reasonable rationales to combine provided. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  16. Some Examiner’s Reasoning for Why a More Detailed Office Action is not Beneficial • It takes more time to write. • It will cause more arguments from Applicants. • The Applicant should be able to read the reference and determine what’s disclosed. • More detail can be added to the rejection in a later Office Action. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  17. Reconciling Both Points of View • Providing a more detailed rejection in the FAOM • Will pay off in time saved responding to Applicant’s reply; and • Will advance prosecution so that it will be easier and quicker to reach a final disposition. • Additional arguments from Applicant generated by a more detailed rejection • Can usually be responded to based on information in the rejection itself, if the Office Action is complete, • Can be more easily responded to with well reasoned and pertinent technical arguments. • May provide the basis for finding allowable subject matter. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  18. More Reconciliation Points of View While the Applicant is required to read the reference, the more open to interpretation disclosures in the reference are: • the more room there is to misunderstand how the reference is applied in the rejection; and • the more arguments that can be generated by Applicant. More detail can be included in a later action • But this will result in more rework for little credit; • And will delay reaching final disposition. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  19. III. The Benefits of Establishing a Prima Facie Case under35 U.S.C. § 103 Mapping Claim Elements to Specific Disclosures in the Prior Art

  20. Rationale to Combine: Inquiries in Graham v. John Deere Must be Addressed to Determine Obviousness In a recent decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the framework set forth in Graham v. John Deere continues to define the inquiries that should be addressed in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (KSR). Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  21. Establishing a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness Rationale to Combine • The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the rationale or reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. • Mere conclusory statements are not adequate to support a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. “(T)here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 441 F.3d 977, 988. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  22. Rationale for Combining Prior Art The rationale may come expressly from the documentary prior art: An explicit statement providing a reason to combine may come from anywhere in the references used. Often, the background or summary of invention in the references being relied upon provides a sound reason for the combination. The rationale may come from a reference that is relied upon solely for providing the reason to combine. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  23. Rationale for Combining Prior Art (cont.) • The rationale may be implicitly contained in the prior art. • Rationale may also come from knowledge available to those of ordinary skill in the art. • “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420; 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1390; 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (KSR). Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  24. Explaining Rationales to Combine • Guidelines for applying some of the rationales presented in the KSR decision are summarized in the following slides. • Examiners should note that this is not an exhaustive list of rationales which may be used when establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  25. KSR Rationales to Combine • Rationale A. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. • Rationale B. Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results • Rationale C. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way • Rationale D. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. • Rationale E. “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions. • Rationale F. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. • Rationale G. Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation (TSM) Test Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  26. KSR Rationales to Combine Also see Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry after KSR v. Teleflex (Red Reg. citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 53643 Sept. 1, 2010) available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21646.pdf Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  27. The Steps of Setting up a 35 USC 103 Rejection What does the prior teach? Describe what each teaches separately. (What does Reference A teach? What does Reference B teach?) What is/are the difference(s) in the claim over the applied reference(s)? (The difference between the instant claims and the prior art is that Reference A does not teach...) What is the modification of the applied reference(s) to arrive at the claimed subject matter; and Why would the modification have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made? Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  28. Presume the following claims and characters are a part of an application being examined.Remember, the more one-on-one correspondence provided, the easier it is for you to show where all the limitations are taught and for Applicant to respond. Example Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  29. The Claimed Invention Claim 1. A multi-purpose clip comprising the combination of: a one-piece body member of depending tear-drop configuration having an upper terminus shaped to replicate one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon characters or historical characters; and an inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot congruent to the shape of said depending body member thereby forming a depending tongue portion; wherein the material of construction of said clip being such that said tongue portion may be displaced from the plane of the surrounding depending body member to thereby form a recess in a releasable friction fit relationship. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  30. Figures of Application Corresponding to Claim 1 Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  31. Prior Art Reference A discloses a multipurpose clip which can be used as a tag or bookmark (col. 2, lines 41-42) comprising a one-piece body member element 10 of Fig. 3 of a depending tear-drop shape having an upper terminus or end point. The one-piece body member can be made of cardboard or plastic (col. 1, lines 36-39). Fig. 3 also shows an inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot 13 congruent to the shape of the depending body member element 10 forming a tongue portion 14. The clip has at its upper end apertures 11 and 12 connected by slot 13 (col. 1, lines 43-45). In one embodiment, the tongue 14 of badge (body member element) 10 is placed behind the page of book 30 while the body memberelement 10 is placed in front of the page (col.2, lines 41-45). The tongue 14 of the clip is made of material that may be displaced from the plane of the surrounding depending body member to form a recess in a releasable friction fit relationship (see col. 1, lines 5-11). Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  32. Prior Art (cont.) Reference A Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  33. Prior Art (cont.): Reference B discloses a bookmark comprising a body member that has a body portion 5 and an handle part 8 that is capable of being inserted between the inner edges of the pages 12 and the back of the binding of the book 11, and flexible members 6and 7 where the body portion can be in any form and appearance (lines 4-10, 11-15, and 25-27) including the silhouette of a well known character or another representation of persons, animals, birds, flowers, or various tokens emblems, advertisements, etc. according to the desire of the manufacturer (lines 56-61). The body portion may be made of any suitable material including rigid or pliable material such as: metal, fabricated material, wood, celluloid, etc. (lines 39-41). Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  34. Prior Art (cont.): Reference B Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  35. Rejection 1 (cont.) Let’s determine if these references are analogous art. Reference A’s article is labeled as a clip and Reference B’s article is labeled as a bookmark. Would one of ordinary skill on the art consider these articles to be Analogous Art? Yes, Reference A states that the article can be used as a bookmark. (col. 2, lines 41-42) Furthermore, even if use as a bookmark was not specifically mentioned a clip could inherently act as a bookmark to mark a page. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  36. Rejection 1 Claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reference A in view of Reference B. Reference A teaches a multi-purpose clip comprising the combination of: a one-piece body member of depending tear-drop configuration having an upper terminus, see Figures 1-7; an inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot congruent to the shape of said depending body member thereby forming a depending tongue portion, wherein the material of construction of said clip being such that tongue-like portion may be displaced from the plane of the surrounding depending body member to thereby form a recess in a releasable friction fit relationship, see column 1, lines 5-11. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  37. Rejection 1 (cont.) Reference A differs from Claim 1 in that it fails to disclose an upper terminus shaped to replicate one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon characters or historical characters. However, Reference B discloses an upper terminus (indicator portion or handle portion) shaped to replicate a well known character, see lines 65-69. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  38. Rejection 1 (cont.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to have an upper terminus shaped to replicate one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon or historical characters because the handle portion may be of any suitable form at the option of the owner. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  39. Rejection 1 (cont.) Has a prima facie case of obviousness been set forth in the rejection? Let’s discuss this: Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  40. Mapping Claim Elements to Specific Disclosures in the Prior Art Remember: • A finding of facts to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be found in both the written text and figures. • If it is clear how specific elements disclosed in figures or text meet specific claim elements, then a simple referral to figures and text is sufficient. • However, if it is not clear how the elements of the reference would meet the claimed limitations then some explanation will be required. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  41. Mapping Claim Elements to Specific Disclosures in the Prior Art If we look back at the rejection, you should notice that there are a number of limitations that have not been specifically addressed or mapped. What about the motivational statement? Is that proper? Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  42. Minimal Mapping between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art So, the rejection made in the Example 1 is not considered to be acceptable since there is no prima facie case of obviousness as the obviousness statement is merely conclusory. There are column and lines and figures mentioned, but they are not “mapped” to the prior art. Also, have all claimed limitations been addressed? The Applicant would most likely have many questions/arguments when reading this rejection. For instance: Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  43. Minimal Mapping between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art (cont.) Some of the questions/arguments may result from: • The rejection not showing or addressing: • Where the “multipurpose” clip is taught; there is a question as to whether is it really taught by the reference and/or whether the Examiner is just copying the instant claim. However, it is taught at col. 2, lines 41-42 in Reference A; • How the claim language of “one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon characters or historical characters” is taught. The limitation is taught by Reference B at lines 56-61; Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  44. Minimal Mapping between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art (cont.) Some of the questions/arguments may result from (cont.): • The rejection not showing or addressing: • Where the “inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot congruent to the shape of said depending body member thereby forming a depending tongue portion” is taught; again, there is a question as to whether is it really taught by the reference and is the Examiner just copying the instant claim. Again, the limitation is taught at- Fig. 3, elements 10, 13 and 14 of Reference A; and • Which specific figure teaches the closest embodiment to the instant claim- Fig. 3 of Reference A. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  45. Rejection 2 Claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reference A in view of Reference B. Reference A discloses a multipurpose clip comprising: a one piece body member 10 of a depending tear-drop configuration having an upper terminus or end point, see Fig. 3; Fig. 3 also shows an inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot 13 congruent to the shape of the depending body member 10 forming a tongue portion 14. Also see col. 2, lines 41-45, which discloses that in one embodiment, the tongue 14 of tag 10 is placed behind the page of book 30 while the body clip 10 is placed in front of the page. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  46. Rejection 2 (cont.) The examiner asserts that in order for the page to be placed between tab 14 and body 10, the material of construction of clip 10must be such that tongue 14 may be displaced from the plane of the surrounding depending body member to thereby form a recess in a releasable friction fit relationship. Reference A differs from Claim 1 in that it fails to disclose an upper terminus shaped to replicate one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon characters or historical characters. However, Reference B discloses an upper terminus 8 (indicator portion or handle portion) shaped to replicate a well known character, see lines 65-69. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  47. Rejection 2 (cont.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to POSITA to have an upper terminus shaped to replicate one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon or historical characters because the handle portion may be of any suitable form at the option of the owner. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  48. Minimal One-on-One Correspondence between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art This rejection is a little better than Example 1, with a little more limitation “mapping”. However, have all the claim limitations not addressed in Rejection 1 been addressed in Rejection 2? Also, has a prima facie case of obviousness been set forth? Let’s look at Rejection 2 more closely: Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  49. Minimal One-on-One Correspondence between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art Notice that in Rejection 2: • The preamble language of a “multipurpose clip”- “Claim 1: A multi-purposeclip comprising the combination of...” still has not been addressed; • How the preamble language of “one of a plurality of configurations selected from cartoon characters or historical characters” is taught, but no real explanation of how Reference A is modified is discussed. The limitation is taught by Reference B at lines 56-61. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

  50. Minimal One-on-One Correspondence between the Claim Limitations and the Prior Art Notice that in Rejection 2 (cont.): • Where the “inner set, continuous, curvilinear slot congruent to the shape of said depending body member thereby forming a depending tongue portion” is taught in Reference A has been set forth, thereby eliminating any questions as to whether it is really taught by the reference and/or whether the Examiner is just copying the instant claim. Again, the limitation is taught at Fig. 3, elements 10, 13 and 14; and • The specific figure in Reference A that teaches the closest embodiment to the instant claim has been listed- Fig. 3. Refresher- 35 USC 103 Training

More Related