[Patentpractice] Effectiveness (or not) of arguing lack of motivation to combine references

Sat Mar 15 02:05:50 UTC 2025

Thank you all (Krista, David B., SKS, Dale, Tim, Michael, and Roger); you
have reminded me to make sure that a '*no motivation to combine*'
argument is made on all 103s, those which make sense of course. I had
forgotten this. Gotta make everything 'appeal-ing'

As to a 103 *silver bullet*, my 100%'er (yup, so far....) is when I can
make an *inoperable if combined* argument. Mention of Graham factors
generally helps to makes'em back down too.

BC
Brian Cronquist
VP Technology & IP
MonolithIC 3D Inc.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 2:30 PM Roger Browdy via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> KSR said that evidence of motivation to combine was not a requirement in
> all cases as it is permissible to rely on common sense.  However, KSR and
> subsequent Fed Cir cases make clear that when basing a rejection on what is
> essentially “obvious to try”, the examiner must present evidence of a
> reasonable expectation of success.  I find this to be successful in my
> chem/biotech practice.
>
>
>
> *Roger L. Browdy*
>
> Partner
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> *FisherBroyles, LLP*
>
> direct: +1 202-277-5198
>
> *roger.browdy at fisherbroyles.com <roger.browdy at fisherbroyles.com>*
>
> www.fisherbroyles.com
>
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is only for the personal
> and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received
> this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and
> delete the original message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Michael B. Comeau via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2025 1:03 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Michael B. Comeau <mbc at mcgarrybair.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Effectiveness (or not) of arguing lack of
> motivation to combine references
>
>
>
> Another tactic is arguing that the result of a combination is not a
> motivation to combine:
>
> https://www.mriplaw.com/blog/lhyc7qy7jvhwj9hn19rxcq6m2vfz5f?format=amp
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mriplaw.com_blog_lhyc7qy7jvhwj9hn19rxcq6m2vfz5f-3Fformat-3Damp&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=AMiWeXB8ySu8-I3y5wMCd-xn1h0okCVIebB7gCCb8tI&e=>
>
>
>
> This message may contain  confidential or privileged  information. If it
> is not intended for you, please destroy it.
>
> Michael B. Comeau  |  Attorney  |  McGarry Bair PC
> Direct (616) 742-3515  |  mbc at mcgarrybair.com
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on
> behalf of Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2025 12:57:36 PM
> *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
> >
> *Cc:* Timothy Snowden <tdsnowden at outlook.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Effectiveness (or not) of arguing lack of
> motivation to combine references
>
>
>
> Another angle that is sometimes helpful is that the proposed motivation to
> combine is not supported by logical reasoning underpinned by the *evidence
> of record* as a *whole*. Conceptually similar to David's point (a).
>
> On 3/14/2025 10:58 AM, Dale Quisenberry via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> Some form language I’ve used re item c:
>
>
>
> Therefore, the Office Action’s proposed modification is not permitted.  *See
> In re Fritch*, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 n.12 (“A proposed modification [is]
> inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the modification render[s]
> the prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose.”); *In re
> Ratti*, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (holding the suggested combination
> of references improper under § 103 because it “would require a substantial
> reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the prior art
> reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [that
> reference’s] construction was designed to operate.”).  *See also *MPEP §
> 2143.01(V) (“If a proposed modification would render the prior art
> invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
> there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.”)
> and (VI) (“If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art
> would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being
> modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render
> the claims prima facie obvious.”).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
>
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
>
> 13910 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 203
>
> Houston, Texas 77069
>
> (832) 680.5000 (office)
>
> (832) 680.1000 (mobile)
>
> (832) 680.5555 (facsimile)
>
> www.quisenberrylaw.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.quisenberrylaw.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=509EEmKY9iFmzePC9aOjZcecSgQMbDmb0xI2TTe_gaE&e=>
>
>
>
> *This email may contain information that is confidential and subject to
> the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable
> privileges.  This email is intended to be received only by those to whom it
> is specifically addressed.  Any receipt of this email by others is not
> intended to and shall not waive any applicable privilege.  If you have
> received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
> sender by separate email.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of David Boundy via
> Patentpractice <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 14 March 2025 at 9:03 am
> *To: *For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>, Krista Jacobsen
> <krista at jacobseniplaw.com> <krista at jacobseniplaw.com>
> *Cc: *David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com> <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Patentpractice] Effectiveness (or not) of arguing lack of
> motivation to combine references
>
> Yes and no.
>
>
>
> I argue "no motivation to combine" frequently.  My most frequent arguments
> are
>
> (a) the examiner relies on personal observation and common sense, not
> "substantial evidence," and
>
> (b) The law requires a *problem* 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.
>
> (c) "renders prior art suitable for its intended purpose" and "changes
> principle of operation" from MPEP 2143.01(V) and (VI)
>
> (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).
>
>
>
> If you have Westlaw, it's easy to search PTAB decisions for "motivation to
> combine" and you'll get lots of hits.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:42 AM Krista Jacobsen via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> 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’t 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krista
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Krista S. Jacobsen
>
> Attorney and Counselor at Law
>
> Jacobsen IP Law
>
> krista at jacobseniplaw.com
>
> T:  408.455.5539
>
> www.jacobseniplaw.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobseniplaw.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=oZOFfu18gIqAXJ0a5_DT2jlXuULFp1FVh31eKjuF8M8&e=>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oppedahl-2Dlists.com_mailman_listinfo_patentpractice-5Foppedahl-2Dlists.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=893CFjec850-6WNX2J5h40frHsZoQmnFMH-Q368JAt8&e=>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *[image: Image removed by sender.]      [image: Image removed by sender.
> Cambridge Technology Law LLC]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iam-2Dmedia.com_strategy300_individuals_david-2Dboundy&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=HzztF-JA7HhdQ-XJqXnKtCTR966OXuaQNU-HsuoUCEE&e=>*
>
> Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iam-2Dmedia.com_strategy300_individuals_david-2Dboundy&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=HzztF-JA7HhdQ-XJqXnKtCTR966OXuaQNU-HsuoUCEE&e=>
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ssrn.com_author-3D2936470&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=wcDW_av_tK5zHQW3X5dDl-YPrCHQyu7abBWUDf5mjic&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.keynect.us_requestCardAccess_USA500DBOUN-3F&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=DjIQl3PxvghLga4E6z_OiV_hyZAOJAq7rEZ1qiyNzms&e=>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.keynect.us_requestCardAccess_USA500DBOUN-3F&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=DjIQl3PxvghLga4E6z_OiV_hyZAOJAq7rEZ1qiyNzms&e=>
>
> *David Boundy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iam-2Dmedia.com_strategy300_individuals_david-2Dboundy&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=HzztF-JA7HhdQ-XJqXnKtCTR966OXuaQNU-HsuoUCEE&e=>*
>
> DBoundy at cambridgetechlaw.com <dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1
> 646.472.9737 <%2B1%206464729737>
>
> *Cambridge Technology Law LLC*
> 686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
> http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cambridgetechlaw.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=ESTLBi9IH-DJsxOC6TApQU2PmSh627VChDR2qghowNs&e=>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_DavidBoundy&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=4dEHyuXJuTyTpG3K6gu9wTJWD_PRbf4K9kL19SkPMMyQomBI2wwgLI_RrELIZLxp&m=s5I8BHiFUpbwm9y4PuNIVRsYEcHpf8QD37tLFN4vCGcoPAReb_yaJm81bfUTsjZB&s=_aNZTnitMk9t3rR-NuOcmF3w7d_YLvlSgUr2wkRFG4g&e=>
>
> mailing address
>
> PO Box 590638
>
> Newton MA   02459
>
>
> This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication
> intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.
> Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20250314/2711c76e/attachment.html>