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.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Iancu Agrees Key USPTO ANPRM Proposals Should be Handled by Congress
- The Intersection of NILS, NFTS, AI Creations, Big Data, and the Metaverse
- Understanding IP Matters: AI Bots, Creators, and Copyright — Learning to Live Together
- Clause 8: Joff Wild on Founding IAM for Chief IP Officers and EU Commission’s Anti-SEP Crusade
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods
Recent Posts
- Iancu Agrees Key USPTO ANPRM Proposals Should be Handled by Congress
- The Intersection of NILS, NFTS, AI Creations, Big Data, and the Metaverse
- Understanding IP Matters: AI Bots, Creators, and Copyright — Learning to Live Together
- Clause 8: Joff Wild on Founding IAM for Chief IP Officers and EU Commission’s Anti-SEP Crusade
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods