<html><head> <title></title> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=no"> </head> <body style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#000000;font-size:13px;"><img id="A12417436730DB0B5EAB905BDCF331F6" alt="" width="0px" src="https://receipts.canarymail.io/track/7CA20B27097B0DE48353ECA654B046B4_A12417436730DB0B5EAB905BDCF331F6.png" height="0px"> <div id="CanaryBody"> <div> 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</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>My first thought is that these rejections amount to improper hand-waving. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div> <div><br></div><div>I would appreciate any thoughts from the brain trust, especially if you have received and responded to similar rejections. Thanks in advance.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista</div> </div> <div id="CanarySig"> <div> <div style="font-family:Helvetica;"><br><div><div>------------------------------------------</div><div>Krista S. Jacobsen</div><div>Attorney and Counselor at Law</div><div>Jacobsen IP Law</div><div>krista@jacobseniplaw.com</div><div>T: 408.455.5539</div><div><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com/">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div> <div><br></div> </div> </div> <div id="CanaryDropbox"> </div> </body></html>