<div dir="ltr"><div>Many thanks to Jeroen, Dan, Scott, and Timothy for your suggestions. They are extremely helpful and will help me craft a solid reply. (I expect it will not change the examiner's mind, but at least I'll be ready to appeal.)</div><div><br></div><div>I love this listserv. Such generous participants! Thank you all again.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 7:45\u202fAM Timothy Snowden 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"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Hi Krista - ditto to what you said and all who responded. I
receive this from time to time - it's almost always a weak
rejection because it's typically only pulled out when the record
doesn't hold the evidence to make a better rejection.</p>
<p>One thing I really like to pound -- and it typically works very
well -- is <i>what does the <b><u>record</u></b> show?</i> That
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning is like a hammer.
Pound it. Then pound it again. It works. Merely rearranging parts
<i>has </i>been held, not <i>always </i>is held. Thus, a
factual finding must be made re: the understanding of a POSITA, <i>based
on the evidence of record</i> -- has the examiner shown that a
POSITA would have known to make such rearrangements? One trick is
to demand official notice (MPEP 2144.03) be taken of any missing
facts that the examiner is asserting are 'well known.' Official
notice sets the examiner up for a lot of work -- because "C. If
Applicant Traverses a Factual Assertion as Not Properly Officially
Noticed or Not Properly Based Upon Common Knowledge, the Examiner
<b><u>Must </u></b>Support the Finding With Adequate Evidence."
Most examiners don't like official notice, as such. That's your
friend.<br>
</p>
<p>Second, these types of rejections 90+% of the time fall into
impermissible hindsight, as Scott says. Mine the references
carefully for teaching away or change in principle of operation. A
lot of times a 'change' that looks sensible at first impression
actually undoes the very thing the primary reference is teaching.</p>
<p>Third, as a fallback / negotiation position, 'criticality' can
include any advantage. For example, if you said widget X might be
blue, and blue might help it blend in with the sky, blue can now
be argued to be critical <i>in that embodiment</i>. That's one
good reason to layer in a lot of example advantages throughout the
specification.</p>
<p>Finally, interview the examiner. Sometimes they're just making a
rejection so they don't get dinged for too many first action
allowances, and they're just looking to you to provide a good
rebuttal they can point to. If so, a lot of times you can figure
out what kind of argument they will accept, and keep it to 1-3
sentences in the response. Other times, the examiner has 'gut
feel' decided it's not patentable, and can't find evidence to
support it, but they still don't think it's patentable. In those
cases, you have to prep for appeal ASAP. Case law, succinct but
on-point arguments, no deference to the examiner's position. Oh
... and let them know you're prepping for appeal -- sometimes it
helps them rethink the work / reward balance earlier.</p>
<p>Hope that helps.<br>
</p>
<div>On 3/25/2025 9:26 AM, Scott C. Sample
via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I
agree. It\u2019s a pretty weak rejection.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">First,
I\u2019d argue all claim limitations must be taught.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">\u201cTo
establish obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim
limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art.
<i>In re Royka</i>, 490 F.2d 981, 180 U.S.P.Q. 580 (CCPA
1974). Additionally, when judging the patentability of a
claim against the prior art, all elements in the claim must
be considered.
<i>In re Wilson</i>, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 U.S.P.Q. 494,
496 (CCPA 1970).\u201d <u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Second,
I\u2019d throw in hindsight and cite KSR using a variation of the
following
</span><span style="font-size:11pt">language: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:11pt">\u2026lacks any rational underpinning
and is strongly indicative of impermissible hindsight
reconstruction. \u201cRejections on obviousness cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must
be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.\u201d
<i>KSR</i>, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 quoting <i>In
re Kahn</i>, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It\u2019s
doubtful </span><i><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">In
re Japikse</span></i><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">
amounts to articulated reasoning, unless the arrangement was
strictly a design choice without any improvement, assuming
this is the cited section:
</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">C.
<i>Rearrangement of Parts</i> <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><i><span style="font-size:11pt">In re</span></i><span style="font-size:11pt">
<i>Japikse,</i> 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
(Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior
art except with regard to the position of the starting
switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position
of the starting switch would not have modified the operation
of the device.); <i>In re Kuhle,</i> 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ
7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a
conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious
matter of design choice).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">My two cents<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:7.5pt 0in 0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:7.5pt 0in 0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(15,23,46)">Scott C. Sample</span></b><b><span style="font-size:1pt;font-family:remialcxesans;color:white">\u200b</span></b><b><span style="font-size:1pt;font-family:template-5QSGLunPEem16QANOhMLNA;color:white">\u200b</span></b><b><span style="font-size:1pt;font-family:zone-1;color:white">\u200b</span></b><b><span style="font-size:1pt;font-family:zones-AQ;color:white">\u200b</span></b><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(15,23,46)"><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" style="padding:0in 2.25pt">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:gray">|<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td nowrap valign="bottom" style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:gray">Partner<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><a href="https://www.cm.law/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:1pt;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="130" height="50" style="width: 1.3541in; height: 0.5208in;" id="m_5073335596285522818Picture_x0020_64594228" src="cid:ii_195cddd4a344cff311"></span></a><span style="font-size:1pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0.75pt 0in 0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:1pt"><img border="0" width="16" height="16" style="width: 0.1666in; height: 0.1666in;" id="m_5073335596285522818Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:ii_195cddd4a345b16b22" alt="Direct:"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:gray"> <a href="tel:469-444-1488" target="_blank"><span style="color:gray;text-decoration:none">469-444-1488</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:1pt"><img border="0" width="16" height="16" style="width: 0.1666in; height: 0.1666in;" id="m_5073335596285522818Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:ii_195cddd4a34692e333" alt="Email:"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:gray"> <a href="mailto:ssample@cm.law" target="_blank"><span style="color:gray;text-decoration:none">ssample@cm.law</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p style="margin:0in"><b><i><span style="font-size:10pt;color:gray"><a href="https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(15,23,46);text-decoration:none">Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="padding:0in"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Patentpractice
<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"><patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Krista S. Jacobsen via
Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For advice.
<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Krista S. Jacobsen
<a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank"><krista@jacobseniplaw.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Patentpractice] In re Japikse and
"criticality of the claimed limitation"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0.75pt">
<div style="border:3pt solid red;padding:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:12pt;background:red">
<span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:white">EXTERNAL
EMAIL<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><img border="0" id="m_5073335596285522818_x0000_i1025"></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div id="m_5073335596285522818CanaryBody">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I
have an office action in which claims have been
rejected under 103. For several of the claims, the
examiner could not find in the applied references
exactly what is recited in the claims, but she
rejected the claims anyway, stating only that the
recited configuration would have been obvious \u201csince
it has been held that rearranging parts of an
invention involves only routine skill in the art.
<i>In re Japikse</i>, 86 USPQ 70.\u201d Then she adds,
\u201cPlease note that in the instant application, the
Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the
claimed limitation.\u201d<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I
am trying to figure out how best to respond to the
examiner\u2019s citation to a CCPA decision from 1950 (!!!)
and the apparent assertion that \u201ccriticality\u201d of
limitations must be disclosed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">My
first thought is that these rejections amount to
improper hand-waving. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Second,
I am unaware of any requirement for an application to
disclose \u201ccriticality for the claimed limitation\u201d in
order for a claim to be patentable over a combination
of references. MPEP 2144.04 says this about
\u201ccriticality\u201d: "If the applicant has demonstrated the
criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be
appropriate to rely solely on the rationale used by
the court to support an obviousness rejection.\u201d The
examiner appears to have recast this statement as: \u201cIf
the applicant has NOT demonstrated the criticality of
a specific limitation, it WOULD be appropriate to rely
solely on the rationale used by the court to support
an obviousness rejection.\u201d Then she sticks in a
reference to <i>In re Japikse</i> and deems it
obvious. I do not think that makes for a proper 103
rejection.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Third,
the examiner\u2019s rationale seems to seek to improperly
shift the USPTO\u2019s burden. The applicant is not
required to prove that an invention is nonobvious
(apparently by disclosing \u201ccriticality for the claimed
limitation\u201d in the application). Instead, the USPTO is
required to allow the claim unless the examiner can
show that the claimed invention IS obvious.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I
would appreciate any thoughts from the brain trust,
especially if you have received and responded to
similar rejections. Thanks in advance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Best
regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Krista<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_5073335596285522818CanarySig">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">------------------------------------------<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Krista
S. Jacobsen<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Attorney
and Counselor at Law<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Jacobsen
IP Law<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">T:
408.455.5539<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com/" target="_blank">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">NOTICE:
This communication may include privileged or
confidential information. If received in error,
please notify the sender and delete this
communication without copying or distributing.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<ul style="display:none">
</ul>
</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>