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
- USPTO Scraps Proposal to Allow Non-Registered Practitioners as Lead Counsel in Final Rule on Expanding PTAB Practice Opportunities
- SCOTUS Denies Challenges to Section 101 Test, Trademark Domicile Rules and Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting Analysis
- After Loper Bright, the USPTO Should Reopen the Comment Period for FY 2025-2029 Patent Fees
- Dissecting the USPTO’s Update to Eligibility Guidance for AI Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 4: Meta Hit with Class Action Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Industry Leaders Ask for Clarification on Third-Party Litigation; EUIPO Applauds German Court Ruling on Misleading Invoices