MPEP 2141 actually cites to Arendi, but then quotes the case entirely out of context. This is a worrisome problem that can be found in many parts of the MPEP, which makes the MPEP a useful reference tool to find relevant cases, but as useful as an opponent’s brief when it comes to accurately characterizing the holdings of decisions. For example, MPEP 2141 actually cites Arendi for the proposition that common sense can be used to supply a missing limitation from the prior art in an obviousness rejection. That, however, is the exact opposite proposition for which the case actually stands.
The post Misapplication of Obviousness: What the MPEP gets wrong about obviousness rejections appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- UPC Issues First Permanent SEP Injunction: The Ramifications of Philips v. Belkin | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Thaler Tells SCOTUS Refusing Copyright to AI-Generated Works Endangers Photo Copyrights, Too
- Amici Urge SCOTUS to Address Uncertainty Around ‘After-Arising Technology’ Question
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, October 10: SCOTUS Invites SG’s Views on RiseandShine’s Trademark Issues; MPA Urges OpenAI to Address Sora 2 Infringement; and UPC to Add Third Panel to Court of Appeal
- IP Experts Remind UKIPO: Global Device Markets Thrive Under Arm’s-Length SEP Licensing