<div dir="ltr"><div>A 103 rejection over a single reference generally takes "alleged knowledge in the art" as its second reference. So we usually respond as if the rejection had cited a reference & alleged knowledge in the art.</div><div><br></div><div>Sometimes this is valid, like when the Examiner relied on it to argue that caches were well known in the art. Sometimes it's bullshit. But if you call it out as a separate second reference, it's easier to argue against it.</div><div><br></div><div>Judith<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:44\u202fPM Stanley H. Kremen via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Colleagues:<br>
<br>
Examiner rejects claim as anticipated by single prior art reference in under 35 USC 102 or obvious over the same reference under 35 USC 103. <br>
<br>
The 102 rejection is understandable, and it can be overcome by showing that the single reference does not teach every element of the claim. <br>
<br>
However, how do we deal with the obviousness rejection? There is only a single reference. There is no explanation of the basis for 103. Is it the examiner relying on the Doctrine of Equivalence?<br>
<br>
Stan Kremen<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>