[Patentpractice] Rejection under “102 or 103”

[David Boundy]

This isn't a well-framed question.  We have neither the written explanation
nor access to the examiner's past neural state.   We can't answer what the
examiner's mental state might have been months ago. We don't know whether
the alternative § 103 covers the weak spot in the § 102 or whether the §
103 brings in something else entirely.

Doctrine of Equivalents is *only* for infringement, never for
unpatentability/invalidity.

You don't tell us whether this is based on Form Paragraph ¶ 7.27 of some
other construct.  An examiner is only permitted to use ¶ 7.27 in specified
circumstances, and each requires a specific showing so you know what's
going on.  Look up  Form Paragraph ¶ 7.27 the MPEP Index to see all the
places it's discussed and see what that gives you.

Where the reference teaches multiple distinct embodiments, and the examiner
is trying to assemble a Frankenstein's monster out of incompatible parts,
then even within a single reference, the examiner still has to show
"motivation to combine."

Depending on the examiner's rationale, Jeff's and Judith's approach could
be correct -- if you show a missing element for § 102 then that same
element is missing for § 103.

But without a well-framed question we can't help you.

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 9:44 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
>


-- 


<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>

*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC

P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459

Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707

*dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
<http://www.potomaclaw.com>*

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470 <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>

Click here to add me to your contacts.
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240211/63a40bd2/attachment.htm>