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
- Squires Takes Over All IPR Institution Decisions in Memo to PTAB Judges
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 17: CAFC Finds Prosecution Disclaimer in Examiner Acceptance of Patentee’s Scope; Japan Urges Opt-In Copyright Model for Sora 2; and Seventh Circuit Clarifies Evidence Required for Sound Recording Copyright Claims
- USPTO Issues NPRM on IPR Practice, Withdraws Vidal-Era Proposal
- Federal Circuit Finds No Due Process Violation Stems from Inconsistent Positions on Patent Ownership at PTAB, ITC
- UPC Issues First Permanent SEP Injunction: The Ramifications of Philips v. Belkin | IPWatchdog Unleashed
