<div dir="ltr"><div>Yes and no.</div><div><br></div><div>I argue "no motivation to combine" frequently. My most frequent arguments are</div><div style="margin-left:40px">(a) the examiner relies on personal observation and common sense, not "substantial evidence," and</div><div style="margin-left:40px">(b)
The law requires a <i>problem</i> in B that motivates solution, modification, combination with a solution in A. The sentence the examiner relies on says "In reference A, apparatus A has advantage A." Great. advantage A applies to apparatus A. But that has nothing to do with, and says nothing fairly inferring that Apparatus A and advantage A has any relevance to reference B.</div><div style="margin-left:40px">(c) "renders prior art suitable for its intended purpose" and "changes principle of operation" from MPEP 2143.01(V) and (VI)<br></div><div>(a) and (b) seldom (not never, seldom) succeed with the examiner. (c) is better, but still not a silver bullet. But all three have high (not perfect, but high) success with the Board. When they don't win, it's almost always because the Board makes up a new rationale (and fails to designate it as a new ground).<br></div><div><br></div><div>If you have Westlaw, it's easy to search PTAB decisions for "motivation to combine" and you'll get lots of hits.</div><div><br></div><div>Doreen Trujillo, David Soucy, Ron Katznelson, and Tim Snowden helped me with a big article on appeals for JPTOS. I got markup from the editors this morning, and should have it all worked in within a couple days. It'll probably be published by end of month. <br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:42\u202fAM Krista Jacobsen 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"><div dir="ltr"><div>A long time ago, I was told that arguing a lack of motivation to combine references is never successful to traverse a 103 rejection unless the resulting combination is somehow broken (e.g., it doesn\u2019t work at all, or the combination eliminates some major goal/benefit of the primary reference). This is one of those nuggets that has always stuck with me.</div><div><br></div><div>I often argue, in both office action replies and appeal briefs, that there is a lack of motivation to combine references, even if the combination is feasible but the Examiner's reasoning is flimsy/bogus or uses hindsight. But I do not think the lack of motivation to combine references has ever been my only argument, so I have always wondered about whether these arguments are actually moving the needle, or if they are just creating a record that the applicant did not concede the point. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Because the identification of a credible motivation to combine is part of the Office's burden in a 103 rejection, the pragmatist in me wants to believe that it is possible to traverse and win on the basis of a lack of motivation to combine the references, even if that is the only argument. But what is the reality? Have you ever traversed and won during examination based solely on a lack of motivation to combine references? (My guess is that I will be able to find winning appeals based solely on lack of motivation to combine references, though I haven't researched it yet.)</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista</div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>------------------------------------------<br></div><div>Krista S. Jacobsen<br></div><div>Attorney and Counselor at Law</div><div>Jacobsen IP Law</div><div><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a></div><div>T: 408.455.5539</div><div><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
-- <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><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10pt"><font size="2"><b><span><span><span><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><font size="2"><b><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <img alt="Cambridge Technology Law LLC" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/keynectup/PROFILE/9b92f0cd-ecec-44c8-8932-60e8dc63709f/thumbnail.jpg?1455027242552" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; outline: 0px;" height="96" border="0" width="96"><br></a></b></font></p><font size="2"><b>
</b><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property
strategists</span></a></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p><b>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:700">David Boundy</span></a></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span></span></span></p></b></font><p></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><a href="mailto:dboundy@cambridgetechlaw.com" target="_blank">DBoundy@cambridgetechlaw.com</a> / <a href="tel:%2B1%206464729737" value="+16464729737" target="_blank">+1 646.472.9737</a></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><span style="font-weight:700">Cambridge Technology Law LLC</span></span><br>686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge MA 02139<br><a href="http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com" target="_blank">http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy</a><br></span></p>mailing address<div>PO Box 590638<br></div><div>Newton MA 02459<br></div></div></div><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""><br>This communication is
a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.<span> </span>Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.<span> </span>Any legal, business or tax information
contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not
intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute
for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse
consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise
the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly
delete it.</span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>