{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

MOREKSR - TC 1700 KSR Examples Presented by Jennifer...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TC 1700 KSR Examples Presented by: Jennifer Michener Gladys Corcoran Jerry Lorengo http://uspto-aisd-315/ksrexamplestc1700/ TC 1700 KSR Examples 0. Overview of previous KSR training 1. TC Examples utilizing KSR rationale 0. Example 1: Rationale C 1. Example 2: Rationales A and E 2. Example 3: Rationale B 3. Example 4: Rationales A and E 4. Example 5: Rationale A 5. Example 6: Rationales E and F 6. Example 7: Rationales A and C 7. Example 8: Rationales A and G 8. Example 9: Rationales A 9. Example 10: Rationale G 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Graham v. John Deere Co. 2. The four factual inquires enunciated therein as a background for determining obviousness are as follows: 0. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art; 1. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
issue; 2. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and 3. Evaluating evidence of secondary considerations. KSR Review KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 3. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the familiar framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , and stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. Key Points 0. Examiners must ensure that the written record includes findings of fact concerning the state of the art and the teachings of the applied references. 1. Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. 0. Office personnel may take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”. 2. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. Rationales: These are examples of some rationales that may be employed in determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious: 0. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 1. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. 2. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}