[Patentpractice] Rejection under “102 or 103”

[Judith S]

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.

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.

Judith

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:44 PM Stanley H. Kremen via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> 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.
>
> The 102 rejection is understandable, and it can be overcome by showing
> that the single reference does not teach every element of the claim.
>
> 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?
>
> Stan Kremen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240211/27d1b9b1/attachment.htm>