[Patentpractice] In re Japikse and "criticality of the claimed limitation"

[Krista S. Jacobsen]

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 “since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.” Then she adds, “Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.”

I am trying to figure out how best to respond to the examiner’s citation to a CCPA decision from 1950 (!!!) and the apparent assertion that “criticality” of limitations must be disclosed.

My first thought is that these rejections amount to improper hand-waving.

Second, I am unaware of any requirement for an application to disclose “criticality for the claimed limitation” in order for a claim to be patentable over a combination of references. MPEP 2144.04 says this about “criticality”: "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.” The examiner appears to have recast this statement as: “If 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.” Then she sticks in a reference to In re Japikse and deems it obvious. I do not think that makes for a proper 103 rejection.

Third, the examiner’s rationale seems to seek to improperly shift the USPTO’s burden. The applicant is not required to prove that an invention is nonobvious (apparently by disclosing “criticality for the claimed limitation” in the application). Instead, the USPTO is required to allow the claim unless the examiner can show that the claimed invention IS obvious.

I would appreciate any thoughts from the brain trust, especially if you have received and responded to similar rejections. Thanks in advance.

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 (http://www.jacobseniplaw.com/)

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250325/f773a592/attachment.html>