A simple calculation will show that, excluding\n isomerism within certain of the R groups, the limited class we find in\n Karrer contains only 20 compounds. However, we wish to point out that it\n is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is\n significant here but, rather, the total circumstances involved, including\n such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two\n alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions,\n and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus. With these\n circumstances in mind, it is our opinion that Karrer has described to\n those with ordinary skill in this art each of the various permutations\n here involved as fully as if he had drawn each structural formula or had\n written each name.\n
","rendered_text_plain":"A simple calculation will show that, excluding isomerism within certain of the R groups, the limited class we find in Karrer contains only 20 compounds. However, we wish to point out that it is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is significant here but, rather, the total circumstances involved, including such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions, and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus. With these circumstances in mind, it is our opinion that Karrer has described to those with ordinary skill in this art each of the various permutations here involved as fully as if he had drawn each structural formula or had written each name.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211890","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"source_anchor":"d0e211890","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus","source_case_id":"cs_w64nik4j"},{"id":"pb_lmvqrhut","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lmvqrhut","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Id. (emphasis in original). Accord In re\n Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978) (prior\n art genus encompassing claimed species which disclosed preference for lower\n alkyl secondary amines, as well as properties possessed by the claimed\n compound constituted description of claimed compound for purposes of\n pre-AIA\n 35 U.S.C. 102(b)). C.f.,In re Ruschig, 343 F.2d 965, 974, 145 USPQ 274, 282 (CCPA\n 1965) (Rejection of claimed compound in light of prior art genus based on\n Petering is not appropriate where the prior art does\n not disclose a small recognizable class of compounds with common\n properties.).","rendered_text_plain":"Id. (emphasis in original). Accord In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978) (prior art genus encompassing claimed species which disclosed preference for lower alkyl secondary amines, as well as properties possessed by the claimed compound constituted description of claimed compound for purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)). C.f.,In re Ruschig, 343 F.2d 965, 974, 145 USPQ 274, 282 (CCPA 1965) (Rejection of claimed compound in light of prior art genus based on Petering is not appropriate where the prior art does not disclose a small recognizable class of compounds with common properties.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211894","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"st_fr6d3dd7","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_fr6d3dd7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["b"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)"},{"id":"pb_2bndr3cf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2bndr3cf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(b) Consider the Express Teachings","rendered_text_plain":"(b) Consider the Express Teachings","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.16","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"(b) Consider the Express Teachings","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_lkr24gzg","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lkr24gzg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"If the prior art reference expressly teaches a particular\n reason to select the claimed species or subgenus, Office personnel should\n point out the express disclosure and explain why it would have been obvious\n to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed invention. An\n express teaching may be based on a statement in the prior art reference such\n as an art recognized equivalence. For example, see Merck & Co.\n v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846\n (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding claims directed to diuretic compositions\n comprising a specific mixture of amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide were\n obvious over a prior art reference expressly teaching that amiloride was a\n pyrazinoylguanidine which could be coadministered with potassium excreting\n diuretic agents, including hydrochlorothiazide which was a named example, to\n produce a diuretic with desirable sodium and potassium eliminating\n properties). See also, In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430,\n 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding it would have been obvious to\n combine teachings of prior art to achieve claimed invention where one\n reference specifically refers to the other).","rendered_text_plain":"If the prior art reference expressly teaches a particular reason to select the claimed species or subgenus, Office personnel should point out the express disclosure and explain why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed invention. An express teaching may be based on a statement in the prior art reference such as an art recognized equivalence. For example, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding claims directed to diuretic compositions comprising a specific mixture of amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide were obvious over a prior art reference expressly teaching that amiloride was a pyrazinoylguanidine which could be coadministered with potassium excreting diuretic agents, including hydrochlorothiazide which was a named example, to produce a diuretic with desirable sodium and potassium eliminating properties). See also, In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding it would have been obvious to combine teachings of prior art to achieve claimed invention where one reference specifically refers to the other).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211921","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_m42vqu2h","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_m42vqu2h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs.","all_citations":["874 F.2d 804","10 USPQ2d 1843"],"canonical_citation":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_674ka3qk","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_674ka3qk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 40 USPQ2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Kemps","all_citations":["97 F.3d 1427","40 USPQ2d 1309"],"canonical_citation":"In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 40 USPQ2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","decision_year":1996,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_lsbcpari","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lsbcpari","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(c) Consider the Teachings of Structural Similarity","rendered_text_plain":"(c) Consider the Teachings of Structural Similarity","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.18","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"(c) Consider the Teachings of Structural Similarity","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_rrpfp6es","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rrpfp6es","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Consider any teachings of a “typical,” “preferred,” or\n “optimum” species or subgenus within the disclosed genus. If such a prior\n art species or subgenus is structurally similar to that claimed, its\n disclosure may provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to\n choose the claimed species or subgenus from the genus, based on the\n reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have\n similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693,\n 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Deuel, 51\n F.3d 1552, 1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Structural\n relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify\n known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound\n may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and\n therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making\n them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties.”).","rendered_text_plain":"Consider any teachings of a “typical,” “preferred,” or “optimum” species or subgenus within the disclosed genus. If such a prior art species or subgenus is structurally similar to that claimed, its disclosure may provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the claimed species or subgenus from the genus, based on the reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211944","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_uz5wn5qr","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_uz5wn5qr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Deuel","all_citations":["51 F.3d 1552","34 USPQ2d 1210"],"canonical_citation":"In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","decision_year":1995,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_froxii3j","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_froxii3j","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"In making an obviousness determination, Office personnel\n should consider the number of variables which must be selected or modified,\n and the nature and significance of the differences between the prior art and\n the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Jones, 958 F.2d\n 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing obviousness\n rejection of novel dicamba salt with acyclic structure over broad prior art\n genus encompassing claimed salt, where disclosed examples of genus were\n dissimilar in structure, lacking an ether linkage or being cyclic);\n In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA\n 1971) (the difference from the particularly preferred subgenus of the prior\n art was a hydroxyl group, a difference conceded by applicant “to be of\n little importance”). In the area of biotechnology, an exemplified species\n may differ from a claimed species by a conservative substitution (“the\n replacement in a protein of one amino acid by another, chemically similar,\n amino acid... [which] is generally expected to lead to either no change or\n only a small change in the properties of the protein.” Dictionary\n of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 97 (John Wiley &\n Sons, 2d ed. 1989)). The effect of a conservative substitution on protein\n function depends on the nature of the substitution and its location in the\n chain. Although at some locations a conservative substitution may be benign,\n in some proteins only one amino acid is allowed at a given position. For\n example, the gain or loss of even one methyl group can destabilize the\n structure if close packing is required in the interior of domains. James\n Darnell et al.,Molecular Cell Biology 51 (W. H. Freeman & Co., 2d\n ed. 1990).","rendered_text_plain":"In making an obviousness determination, Office personnel should consider the number of variables which must be selected or modified, and the nature and significance of the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350, 21 USPQ2d 1941, 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing obviousness rejection of novel dicamba salt with acyclic structure over broad prior art genus encompassing claimed salt, where disclosed examples of genus were dissimilar in structure, lacking an ether linkage or being cyclic); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971) (the difference from the particularly preferred subgenus of the prior art was a hydroxyl group, a difference conceded by applicant “to be of little importance”). In the area of biotechnology, an exemplified species may differ from a claimed species by a conservative substitution (“the replacement in a protein of one amino acid by another, chemically similar, amino acid... [which] is generally expected to lead to either no change or only a small change in the properties of the protein.” Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 97 (John Wiley & Sons, 2d ed. 1989)). The effect of a conservative substitution on protein function depends on the nature of the substitution and its location in the chain. Although at some locations a conservative substitution may be benign, in some proteins only one amino acid is allowed at a given position. For example, the gain or loss of even one methyl group can destabilize the structure if close packing is required in the interior of domains. James Darnell et al.,Molecular Cell Biology 51 (W. H. Freeman & Co., 2d ed. 1990).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211959","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_rkngz42w","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rkngz42w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Susi","all_citations":["440 F.2d 442","169 USPQ 423"],"canonical_citation":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_vtmvpzho","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vtmvpzho","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"The closer the physical and/or chemical similarities\n between the claimed species or subgenus and any exemplary species or\n subgenus disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the\n claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner to the genus.\n See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904\n (and cases cited therein). Cf.Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83, 29 USPQ2d at 1552 (disclosure\n of dissimilar species can provide teaching away).","rendered_text_plain":"The closer the physical and/or chemical similarities between the claimed species or subgenus and any exemplary species or subgenus disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner to the genus. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904 (and cases cited therein). Cf.Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83, 29 USPQ2d at 1552 (disclosure of dissimilar species can provide teaching away).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211978","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_ogxlh7rk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ogxlh7rk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Similarly, consider any teaching or suggestion in the\n reference of a preferred species or subgenus that is significantly different\n in structure from the claimed species or subgenus. Such a teaching may weigh\n against selecting the claimed species or subgenus and thus against a\n determination of obviousness. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83,\n 29 USPQ2d at 1552 (reversing obviousness rejection of species in view of\n large size of genus and disclosed “optimum” species which differed greatly\n from and were more complex than the claimed species);\n Jones, 958 F.2d at 350, 21 USPQ2d at 1943 (reversing\n obviousness rejection of novel dicamba salt with acyclic structure over\n broad prior art genus encompassing claimed salt, where disclosed examples of\n genus were dissimilar in structure, lacking an ether linkage or being\n cyclic). For example, teachings of preferred species of a complex nature\n within a disclosed genus may motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to make\n similar complex species and thus teach away from making simple species\n within the genus. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382, 29 USPQ2d at\n 1552. See also Jones, 958 F.2d at 350, 21 USPQ2d at 1943\n (disclosed salts of genus held not sufficiently similar in structure to\n render claimed species prima facie obvious).","rendered_text_plain":"Similarly, consider any teaching or suggestion in the reference of a preferred species or subgenus that is significantly different in structure from the claimed species or subgenus. Such a teaching may weigh against selecting the claimed species or subgenus and thus against a determination of obviousness. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382-83, 29 USPQ2d at 1552 (reversing obviousness rejection of species in view of large size of genus and disclosed “optimum” species which differed greatly from and were more complex than the claimed species); Jones, 958 F.2d at 350, 21 USPQ2d at 1943 (reversing obviousness rejection of novel dicamba salt with acyclic structure over broad prior art genus encompassing claimed salt, where disclosed examples of genus were dissimilar in structure, lacking an ether linkage or being cyclic). For example, teachings of preferred species of a complex nature within a disclosed genus may motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to make similar complex species and thus teach away from making simple species within the genus. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382, 29 USPQ2d at 1552. See also Jones, 958 F.2d at 350, 21 USPQ2d at 1943 (disclosed salts of genus held not sufficiently similar in structure to render claimed species prima facie obvious).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211990","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_hlgj3727","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hlgj3727","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Concepts used to analyze the structural similarity of\n chemical compounds in other types of chemical cases are equally useful in\n analyzing genus-species cases. For example, a claimed tetra-orthoester fuel\n composition was held to be obvious in light of a prior art tri-orthoester\n fuel composition based on their structural and chemical similarity and\n similar use as fuel additives. Dillon, 919 F.2d at\n 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1900-02. Likewise, claims to amitriptyline used as an\n antidepressant were held obvious in light of the structural similarity to\n imipramine, a known antidepressant prior art compound, where both compounds\n were tricyclic dibenzo compounds and differed structurally only in the\n replacement of the unsaturated carbon atom in the center ring of\n amitriptyline with a nitrogen atom in imipramine. In re Merck &\n Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096-97, 231 USPQ 375, 378-79 (Fed. Cir.\n 1986). Other structural similarities have been found to support a\n prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g.,\n In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1093-95, 197 USPQ 601,\n 610-11 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers); In re Wilder, 563\n F.2d 457, 460, 195 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1977) (adjacent homologs and\n structural isomers); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1344, 166\n USPQ 406, 409 (CCPA 1970) (acid and ethyl ester); In re\n Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 240, 138 USPQ 39, 41 (CCPA 1963) (omission\n of methyl group from pyrazole ring). Generally, some teaching of a\n structural similarity will be necessary to suggest selection of the claimed\n species or subgenus. Id.","rendered_text_plain":"Concepts used to analyze the structural similarity of chemical compounds in other types of chemical cases are equally useful in analyzing genus-species cases. For example, a claimed tetra-orthoester fuel composition was held to be obvious in light of a prior art tri-orthoester fuel composition based on their structural and chemical similarity and similar use as fuel additives. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1900-02. Likewise, claims to amitriptyline used as an antidepressant were held obvious in light of the structural similarity to imipramine, a known antidepressant prior art compound, where both compounds were tricyclic dibenzo compounds and differed structurally only in the replacement of the unsaturated carbon atom in the center ring of amitriptyline with a nitrogen atom in imipramine. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096-97, 231 USPQ 375, 378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Other structural similarities have been found to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1093-95, 197 USPQ 601, 610-11 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers); In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 460, 195 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1977) (adjacent homologs and structural isomers); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1344, 166 USPQ 406, 409 (CCPA 1970) (acid and ethyl ester); In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 240, 138 USPQ 39, 41 (CCPA 1963) (omission of methyl group from pyrazole ring). Generally, some teaching of a structural similarity will be necessary to suggest selection of the claimed species or subgenus. Id.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_jo5qatux","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_jo5qatux","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Merck & Co.","all_citations":["800 F.2d 1091","231 USPQ 375"],"canonical_citation":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_citsnexy","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_citsnexy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re May","all_citations":["574 F.2d 1082","197 USPQ 601"],"canonical_citation":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_dk7hgj3f","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_dk7hgj3f","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Wilder","all_citations":["563 F.2d 457","195 USPQ 426"],"canonical_citation":"In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977)","decision_year":1977,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_54nduizn","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_54nduizn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Hoch","all_citations":["428 F.2d 1341","166 USPQ 406"],"canonical_citation":"In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970)","decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_e33nnrmw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_e33nnrmw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 USPQ 39 (CCPA 1963)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Druey","all_citations":["319 F.2d 237","138 USPQ 39"],"canonical_citation":"In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 USPQ 39 (CCPA 1963)","decision_year":1963,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_6v5cexpd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6v5cexpd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(d) Consider the Teachings of Similar Properties or Uses","rendered_text_plain":"(d) Consider the Teachings of Similar Properties or Uses","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.20","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"(d) Consider the Teachings of Similar Properties or Uses","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_vmoqyajn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vmoqyajn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Consider the properties and utilities of the structurally\n similar prior art species or subgenus. It is the properties and utilities\n that provide real world motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make\n species structurally similar to those in the prior art.\n Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697, 16 USPQ2d at 1905;\n In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 586, 170 USPQ 343, 348\n (CCPA 1971). Conversely, lack of any known useful properties weighs against\n a finding of motivation to make or select a species or subgenus. In\n re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 1392, 1395-96, 185 USPQ 585, 587,\n 590 (CCPA 1975) (The prior art compound so irritated the skin that it could\n not be regarded as useful for the disclosed anesthetic purpose, and\n therefore a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to make\n related compounds.); Stemniski, 444 F.2d at 586, 170 USPQ\n at 348 (close structural similarity alone is not sufficient to create a\n prima facie case of obviousness when the reference\n compounds lack utility, and thus there is no motivation to make related\n compounds.). However, the prior art need not disclose a newly discovered\n property in order for there to be a prima facie case of\n obviousness. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697, 16 USPQ2d at\n 1904-05 (and cases cited therein). If the claimed invention and the\n structurally similar prior art species share any useful property, that\n will generally be sufficient to motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to\n make the claimed species, e.g., id. For example, based on\n a finding that a tri-orthoester and a tetra-orthoester behave similarly in\n certain chemical reactions, it has been held that one of ordinary skill in\n the relevant art would have been motivated to select either structure. 919\n F.2d at 692, 16 USPQ2d at 1900-01. In fact, similar properties may normally\n be presumed when compounds are very close in structure.\n Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904.\n See also In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870,\n 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“When chemical compounds have ‘very close’ structural\n similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima\n facie case may be made.”). Thus, evidence of similar properties\n or evidence of any useful properties disclosed in the prior art that would\n be expected to be shared by the claimed invention weighs in favor of a\n conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.\n Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697-98, 16 USPQ2d at 1905;\n In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 461, 195 USPQ 426,\n 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173\n USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).","rendered_text_plain":"Consider the properties and utilities of the structurally similar prior art species or subgenus. It is the properties and utilities that provide real world motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make species structurally similar to those in the prior art. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697, 16 USPQ2d at 1905; In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 586, 170 USPQ 343, 348 (CCPA 1971). Conversely, lack of any known useful properties weighs against a finding of motivation to make or select a species or subgenus. In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 1392, 1395-96, 185 USPQ 585, 587, 590 (CCPA 1975) (The prior art compound so irritated the skin that it could not be regarded as useful for the disclosed anesthetic purpose, and therefore a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to make related compounds.); Stemniski, 444 F.2d at 586, 170 USPQ at 348 (close structural similarity alone is not sufficient to create a prima facie case of obviousness when the reference compounds lack utility, and thus there is no motivation to make related compounds.). However, the prior art need not disclose a newly discovered property in order for there to be a prima facie case of obviousness. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697, 16 USPQ2d at 1904-05 (and cases cited therein). If the claimed invention and the structurally similar prior art species share any useful property, that will generally be sufficient to motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to make the claimed species, e.g., id. For example, based on a finding that a tri-orthoester and a tetra-orthoester behave similarly in certain chemical reactions, it has been held that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have been motivated to select either structure. 919 F.2d at 692, 16 USPQ2d at 1900-01. In fact, similar properties may normally be presumed when compounds are very close in structure. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“When chemical compounds have ‘very close’ structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made.”). Thus, evidence of similar properties or evidence of any useful properties disclosed in the prior art that would be expected to be shared by the claimed invention weighs in favor of a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 697-98, 16 USPQ2d at 1905; In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 461, 195 USPQ 426, 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_5iwn23ek","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5iwn23ek","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Stemniski","all_citations":["444 F.2d 581","170 USPQ 343"],"canonical_citation":"In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_fp2icyp4","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fp2icyp4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 185 USPQ 585 (CCPA 1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Albrecht","all_citations":["514 F.2d 1389","185 USPQ 585"],"canonical_citation":"In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 185 USPQ 585 (CCPA 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_zuyyneo7","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zuyyneo7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Grabiak","all_citations":["769 F.2d 729","226 USPQ 870","226 USPQ 871"],"canonical_citation":"In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_qxh5sj3s","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qxh5sj3s","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(e) Consider the Predictability of the Technology","rendered_text_plain":"(e) Consider the Predictability of the Technology","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.22","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"(e) Consider the Predictability of the Technology","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_l5o23c7u","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_l5o23c7u","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Consider the predictability of the technology. See, e.g.,\n Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-97, 16 USPQ2d at 1901-05;\n In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 732-33, 226 USPQ 870, 872\n (Fed. Cir. 1985). If the technology is unpredictable, it is less likely that\n structurally similar species will render a claimed species obvious because\n it may not be reasonable to infer that they would share similar properties.\n See, e.g., In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1094, 197 USPQ 601,\n 611 (CCPA 1978) (prima facie obviousness of claimed\n analgesic compound based on structurally similar prior art isomer was\n rebutted with evidence demonstrating that analgesia and addiction properties\n could not be reliably predicted on the basis of chemical structure);\n In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 191, 98 USPQ 144, 150\n (CCPA 1953) (unpredictability in the insecticide field, with homologs,\n isomers and analogs of known effective insecticides having proven\n ineffective as insecticides, was considered as a factor weighing against a\n conclusion of obviousness of the claimed compounds). However, obviousness\n does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation of\n success, i.e., a reasonable expectation of obtaining similar properties.\n See, e.g.,In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681\n (Fed. Cir. 1988).","rendered_text_plain":"Consider the predictability of the technology. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-97, 16 USPQ2d at 1901-05; In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 732-33, 226 USPQ 870, 872 (Fed. Cir. 1985). If the technology is unpredictable, it is less likely that structurally similar species will render a claimed species obvious because it may not be reasonable to infer that they would share similar properties. See, e.g., In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1094, 197 USPQ 601, 611 (CCPA 1978) (prima facie obviousness of claimed analgesic compound based on structurally similar prior art isomer was rebutted with evidence demonstrating that analgesia and addiction properties could not be reliably predicted on the basis of chemical structure); In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 191, 98 USPQ 144, 150 (CCPA 1953) (unpredictability in the insecticide field, with homologs, isomers and analogs of known effective insecticides having proven ineffective as insecticides, was considered as a factor weighing against a conclusion of obviousness of the claimed compounds). However, obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., a reasonable expectation of obtaining similar properties. See, e.g.,In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212088","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"cs_2epiyttz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2epiyttz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Schechter","all_citations":["205 F.2d 185","98 USPQ 144"],"canonical_citation":"In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953)","decision_year":1953,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_gomj5bl2","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gomj5bl2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(f) Consider Any Other Teaching To Support the Selection of the Species\n or Subgenus","rendered_text_plain":"(f) Consider Any Other Teaching To Support the Selection of the Species or Subgenus","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.24","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"(f) Consider Any Other Teaching To Support the Selection of the Species or Subgenus","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_c5bmcg6g","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_c5bmcg6g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"The categories of relevant teachings enumerated above are\n those most frequently encountered in a genus-species case, but they are not\n exclusive. Office personnel should consider the totality of the evidence in\n each case. In unusual cases, there may be other relevant teachings\n sufficient to support the selection of the species or subgenus and,\n therefore, a conclusion of obviousness.","rendered_text_plain":"The categories of relevant teachings enumerated above are those most frequently encountered in a genus-species case, but they are not exclusive. Office personnel should consider the totality of the evidence in each case. In unusual cases, there may be other relevant teachings sufficient to support the selection of the species or subgenus and, therefore, a conclusion of obviousness.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212121","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_trdsqbcr","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_trdsqbcr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"5. Make Express Fact-Findings and Determine Whether They Support a\n Prima Facie Case of Obviousness","rendered_text_plain":"5. Make Express Fact-Findings and Determine Whether They Support a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211596/b.26","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"5. Make Express Fact-Findings and Determine Whether They Support a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"pb_svm5qjjl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_svm5qjjl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Based on the evidence as a whole (In re\n Bell, 991 F.2d 781,784, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993);\n In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1057\n (Fed. Cir. 1990)), Office personnel should make express fact-findings relating\n to the Graham factors, focusing primarily on the prior art\n teachings discussed above. The fact-findings should specifically articulate any\n teachings or suggestions in the prior art that would have motivated one of\n ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed species or subgenus.\n Kulling, 897 F.2d at 1149, 14 USPQ2d at 1058;\n Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1579\n n.42, 1 USQP2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The fact-findings should state\n a rationale, as required by KSR, that supports a conclusion\n that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Thereafter, it should be\n determined whether these findings, considered as a whole, establish a\n prima facie case that the claimed invention would have\n been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the relevant time.","rendered_text_plain":"Based on the evidence as a whole (In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,784, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), Office personnel should make express fact-findings relating to the Graham factors, focusing primarily on the prior art teachings discussed above. The fact-findings should specifically articulate any teachings or suggestions in the prior art that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed species or subgenus. Kulling, 897 F.2d at 1149, 14 USPQ2d at 1058; Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USQP2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The fact-findings should state a rationale, as required by KSR, that supports a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious. Thereafter, it should be determined whether these findings, considered as a whole, establish a prima facie case that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the relevant time.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212131","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_wsalmnus"},{"id":"se_ox3ptyfq","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ox3ptyfq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2144_09","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2144_09","section_number":"2144.09","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds (Homologs, Analogues, Isomers)","children_ids":["pb_7mg3ij2h","pb_ijo2v6xv","pb_ozpxr5al","pb_m7vt2nwe","pb_d4qggvdp","pb_v7cbbqre","pb_j6aygwlj","pb_6q752zhn","pb_5zmsx7yc","pb_kcus2nc3","pb_wrmg7akl","pb_xx3suj3d","pb_s7uisy7s","pb_ct2tktxn","pb_llug5ja4","pb_mt62mvl6","pb_gzodaz3k","pb_33suxdoo","pb_ub555rub","pb_rhkh7nw5","pb_ihxaihhd","pb_6feenull","pb_zcph354o","pb_hkxa6brk","pb_pdlxjw3h"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_dcag3ghv"},{"id":"pb_7mg3ij2h","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7mg3ij2h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an\n application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject\n to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is\n \"before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject\n to pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102, the relevant time is \"at the time of the\n invention\". See MPEP § 2150 et seq. Many of the\n court decisions discussed in this section involved applications or patents subject to\n pre-AIA 35\n U.S.C. 102. These court decisions may be applicable to\n applications and patents subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 but the\n relevant time is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and not at\n the time of the invention.]","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is \"before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the relevant time is \"at the time of the invention\". See MPEP § 2150 et seq. Many of the court decisions discussed in this section involved applications or patents subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. These court decisions may be applicable to applications and patents subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 but the relevant time is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and not at the time of the invention.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_238ed_1fa","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"pb_ijo2v6xv","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ijo2v6xv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION\n THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES","rendered_text_plain":"I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.0","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_ozpxr5al","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ozpxr5al","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A prima facie case of obviousness may be made\n when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar\n utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and\n function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound,\n in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.”\n In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See\n In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more\n detail below) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed\n below and in MPEP §\n 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to\n obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also\n MPEP\n § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).","rendered_text_plain":"A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212172","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_4gm5l6fc","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4gm5l6fc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Payne","all_citations":["606 F.2d 303","203 USPQ 245"],"canonical_citation":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_m7vt2nwe","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_m7vt2nwe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"II. HOMOLOGY AND ISOMERISM ARE FACTS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED WITH ALL OTHER\n RELEVANT FACTS IN DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS","rendered_text_plain":"II. HOMOLOGY AND ISOMERISM ARE FACTS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED WITH ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS IN DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.2","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. HOMOLOGY AND ISOMERISM ARE FACTS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED WITH ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS IN DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_d4qggvdp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_d4qggvdp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same\n radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs\n (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group,\n e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close\n structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds\n possess similar properties. In reWilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also\n In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers\n prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v.\n Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S)\n stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of\n ramipril.).","rendered_text_plain":"Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In reWilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212209","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_6l5fquop","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6l5fquop","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd.","all_citations":["499 F.3d 1293","84 USPQ2d 1197"],"canonical_citation":"Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007)","decision_year":2007,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_v7cbbqre","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_v7cbbqre","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Isomers having the same empirical formula but different structures\n are not necessarily considered equivalent by chemists skilled in the art and\n therefore are not necessarily suggestive of each other. Ex parteMowry, 91 USPQ 219 (Bd. App. 1950) (claimed cyclohexylstyrene not\n prima facie obvious over prior art isohexylstyrene). Similarly,\n homologs which are far removed from adjacent homologs may not be expected to have\n similar properties. In reMills, 281 F.2d 218, 221 126 USPQ 513, 516 (CCPA 1960) (in the\n absence of “some way to bridge the factual gap between” them, prior art disclosure of\n C(8) to C(12) alkyl sulfates was not sufficient to render prima\n facie obvious claimed C(1) alkyl sulfate).","rendered_text_plain":"Isomers having the same empirical formula but different structures are not necessarily considered equivalent by chemists skilled in the art and therefore are not necessarily suggestive of each other. Ex parteMowry, 91 USPQ 219 (Bd. App. 1950) (claimed cyclohexylstyrene not prima facie obvious over prior art isohexylstyrene). Similarly, homologs which are far removed from adjacent homologs may not be expected to have similar properties. In reMills, 281 F.2d 218, 221 126 USPQ 513, 516 (CCPA 1960) (in the absence of “some way to bridge the factual gap between” them, prior art disclosure of C(8) to C(12) alkyl sulfates was not sufficient to render prima facie obvious claimed C(1) alkyl sulfate).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212230","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_7mg57fx2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7mg57fx2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (BPAI 1950)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"Ex parte Mowry","all_citations":["91 USPQ 219"],"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (BPAI 1950)","decision_year":1950,"court":"BPAI"},{"id":"cs_qcwxogzu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_qcwxogzu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Mills","all_citations":["281 F.2d 218","126 USPQ 513"],"canonical_citation":"In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960)","decision_year":1960,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_j6aygwlj","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_j6aygwlj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which\n must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of\n obviousness. In reMills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In\n reWiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967). Homology should\n not be automatically equated with prima facie obviousness because\n the claimed invention and the prior art must each be viewed “as a whole.” In\n re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972) (Claims to a\n polymerization process using a sterically hindered amine were held nonobvious over a\n similar prior art process because the prior art disclosed a large number of\n unhindered amines and only one sterically hindered amine (which differed from a\n claimed amine by 3 carbon atoms), and therefore the reference as a whole did not\n apprise the ordinary artisan of the significance of hindered amines as a class.).","rendered_text_plain":"Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. In reMills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In reWiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967). Homology should not be automatically equated with prima facie obviousness because the claimed invention and the prior art must each be viewed “as a whole.” In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972) (Claims to a polymerization process using a sterically hindered amine were held nonobvious over a similar prior art process because the prior art disclosed a large number of unhindered amines and only one sterically hindered amine (which differed from a claimed amine by 3 carbon atoms), and therefore the reference as a whole did not apprise the ordinary artisan of the significance of hindered amines as a class.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_g3pdkjtg","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_g3pdkjtg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Wiechert","all_citations":["370 F.2d 927","152 USPQ 247"],"canonical_citation":"In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_pw7qyby2","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pw7qyby2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Langer","all_citations":["465 F.2d 896","175 USPQ 169"],"canonical_citation":"In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972)","decision_year":1972,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_6q752zhn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6q752zhn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"III. PRESENCE OF A TRUE HOMOLOGOUS OR ISOMERIC RELATIONSHIP IS NOT\n CONTROLLING","rendered_text_plain":"III. PRESENCE OF A TRUE HOMOLOGOUS OR ISOMERIC RELATIONSHIP IS NOT CONTROLLING","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.4","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. PRESENCE OF A TRUE HOMOLOGOUS OR ISOMERIC RELATIONSHIP IS NOT CONTROLLING","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_5zmsx7yc","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5zmsx7yc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to\n render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious.\n In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior\n art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having\n pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art\n compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms\n between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or\n three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms. The court held that although the prior\n art compounds were not true homologs or isomers of the claimed compounds, the\n similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that\n one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed\n compounds in searching for new pesticides.).","rendered_text_plain":"Prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms. The court held that although the prior art compounds were not true homologs or isomers of the claimed compounds, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new pesticides.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212288","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_kcus2nc3","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kcus2nc3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"See also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d\n 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claimed protein was held to be obvious in light of structural\n similarities to the prior art, including known structural and functional similarity\n of the amino acids leucine and isoleucine); In re Merck & Co.,\n Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (claimed and prior\n art compounds used in a method of treating depression would have been expected to\n have similar activity because the structural difference between the compounds\n involved a known bioisosteric replacement); In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The\n tri-orthoester fuel compositions of the prior art and the claimed tetra-orthoester\n fuel compositions would have been expected to have similar properties based on close\n structural and chemical similarity between the orthoesters and the fact that both the\n prior art and applicant used the orthoesters as fuel additives.) (See\n MPEP §\n 2144 for a more detailed discussion of the facts in the\n Dillon case.).","rendered_text_plain":"See also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claimed protein was held to be obvious in light of structural similarities to the prior art, including known structural and functional similarity of the amino acids leucine and isoleucine); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (claimed and prior art compounds used in a method of treating depression would have been expected to have similar activity because the structural difference between the compounds involved a known bioisosteric replacement); In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The tri-orthoester fuel compositions of the prior art and the claimed tetra-orthoester fuel compositions would have been expected to have similar properties based on close structural and chemical similarity between the orthoesters and the fact that both the prior art and applicant used the orthoesters as fuel additives.) (See MPEP § 2144 for a more detailed discussion of the facts in the Dillon case.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212300","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_p7kn632i","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_p7kn632i","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Mayne","all_citations":["104 F.3d 1339","41 USPQ2d 1451"],"canonical_citation":"In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_q5mkn4nu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_q5mkn4nu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Merck & Co., Inc.","all_citations":["800 F.2d 1091","231 USPQ 375"],"canonical_citation":"In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_wrmg7akl","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wrmg7akl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Compare In reGrabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (substitution\n of a thioester group for an ester group in an herbicidal safener compound was not\n suggested by the prior art); In reBell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (The\n established relationship between a nucleic acid and the protein it encodes in the\n genetic code does not render a gene prima facie obvious over its\n corresponding protein in the same way that closely related structures in chemistry\n may create a prima facie case because there are a vast number of\n nucleotide sequences that might encode for a specific protein as a result of\n degeneracy in the genetic code (i.e., the fact that most amino acids are specified by\n more than one nucleotide sequence or codon).); In reDeuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558-59, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1215 (Fed. Cir.\n 1995) (“A prior art disclosure of the amino acid sequence of a protein does not\n necessarily render particular DNA molecules encoding the protein obvious because the\n redundancy of the genetic code permits one to hypothesize an enormous number of DNA\n sequences coding for the protein.” The existence of a general method of gene cloning\n in the prior art is not sufficient, without more, to render obvious a particular cDNA\n molecule.).","rendered_text_plain":"Compare In reGrabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (substitution of a thioester group for an ester group in an herbicidal safener compound was not suggested by the prior art); In reBell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (The established relationship between a nucleic acid and the protein it encodes in the genetic code does not render a gene prima facie obvious over its corresponding protein in the same way that closely related structures in chemistry may create a prima facie case because there are a vast number of nucleotide sequences that might encode for a specific protein as a result of degeneracy in the genetic code (i.e., the fact that most amino acids are specified by more than one nucleotide sequence or codon).); In reDeuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558-59, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A prior art disclosure of the amino acid sequence of a protein does not necessarily render particular DNA molecules encoding the protein obvious because the redundancy of the genetic code permits one to hypothesize an enormous number of DNA sequences coding for the protein.” The existence of a general method of gene cloning in the prior art is not sufficient, without more, to render obvious a particular cDNA molecule.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212330","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_xx3suj3d","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xx3suj3d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"IV. PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF METHOD OF MAKING A CLAIMED\n COMPOUND MAY BE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING PRIMA FACIE\n OBVIOUSNESS","rendered_text_plain":"IV. PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF METHOD OF MAKING A CLAIMED COMPOUND MAY BE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.6","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IV. PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF METHOD OF MAKING A CLAIMED COMPOUND MAY BE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUSNESS","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_s7uisy7s","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_s7uisy7s","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"“[T]he presence—or absence—of a suitably operative, obvious process\n for making a composition of matter may have an ultimate bearing on whether that\n composition is obvious—or nonobvious—under 35 U.S.C. 103.” In re\n Maloney, 411 F.2d 1321, 1323, 162 USPQ 98, 100 (CCPA 1969).","rendered_text_plain":"“[T]he presence—or absence—of a suitably operative, obvious process for making a composition of matter may have an ultimate bearing on whether that composition is obvious—or nonobvious—under 35 U.S.C. 103.” In re Maloney, 411 F.2d 1321, 1323, 162 USPQ 98, 100 (CCPA 1969).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212371","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_rtz62ewl","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rtz62ewl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Maloney, 411 F.2d 1321, 162 USPQ 98 (CCPA 1969)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Maloney","all_citations":["411 F.2d 1321","162 USPQ 98"],"canonical_citation":"In re Maloney, 411 F.2d 1321, 162 USPQ 98 (CCPA 1969)","decision_year":1969,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_ct2tktxn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ct2tktxn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"“[I]f the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a\n method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not\n be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. In\n this context, we say that the absence of a known or obvious process for making the\n claimed compounds overcomes a presumption that the compounds are obvious, based on\n the close relationships between their structures and those of prior art compounds.”\n In reHoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274-75, 158 USPQ 597, 601 (CCPA 1968).","rendered_text_plain":"“[I]f the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. In this context, we say that the absence of a known or obvious process for making the claimed compounds overcomes a presumption that the compounds are obvious, based on the close relationships between their structures and those of prior art compounds.” In reHoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274-75, 158 USPQ 597, 601 (CCPA 1968).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212380","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_64ef7fjc","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_64ef7fjc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1968)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Hoeksema","all_citations":["399 F.2d 269","158 USPQ 597"],"canonical_citation":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1968)","decision_year":1968,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"pb_llug5ja4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_llug5ja4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"See In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) for a general\n discussion of circumstances under which the prior art suggests methods for making\n novel compounds which are of close structural similarity to compounds known in the\n prior art. It may be proper to apply “methodology in rejecting product claims under\n 35 U.S.C.\n 103, depending on the particular facts of the case, the manner\n and context in which methodology applies, and the overall logic of the rejection.”\n Ex parte Goldgaber, 41 USPQ2d 1172, 1176 (Bd. Pat. App. &\n Inter. 1996).","rendered_text_plain":"See In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) for a general discussion of circumstances under which the prior art suggests methods for making novel compounds which are of close structural similarity to compounds known in the prior art. It may be proper to apply “methodology in rejecting product claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, depending on the particular facts of the case, the manner and context in which methodology applies, and the overall logic of the rejection.” Ex parte Goldgaber, 41 USPQ2d 1172, 1176 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1996).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212389","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_jjq7iazm","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_jjq7iazm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Goldgaber, 41 USPQ2d 1172 (BPAI 1996)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"Ex parte Goldgaber","all_citations":["41 USPQ2d 1172"],"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Goldgaber, 41 USPQ2d 1172 (BPAI 1996)","decision_year":1996,"court":"BPAI"},{"id":"pb_mt62mvl6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mt62mvl6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"V. PRESUMPTION OF OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS OVERCOME WHERE\n THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES","rendered_text_plain":"V. PRESUMPTION OF OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS OVERCOME WHERE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.8","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"V. PRESUMPTION OF OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS OVERCOME WHERE THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_gzodaz3k","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gzodaz3k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"The presumption of obviousness based on a reference disclosing\n structurally similar compounds may be overcome where there is evidence showing there\n is no reasonable expectation of similar properties in structurally similar compounds.\n In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (appellant produced\n sufficient evidence to establish a substantial degree of unpredictability in the\n pertinent art area, and thereby rebutted the presumption that structurally similar\n compounds have similar properties); In reSchechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953). See also\n Ex parte Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.\n 1987) (Claims directed to compounds containing a 7-membered ring were rejected as\n prima facie obvious over a reference which taught 5- and\n 6-membered ring homologs of the claimed compounds. The Board reversed the rejection\n because the prior art taught that the compounds containing a 5-membered ring\n possessed the opposite utility of the compounds containing the 6-membered ring,\n undermining the examiner’s asserted prima facie case arising from\n an expectation of similar results in the claimed compounds which contain a 7-membered\n ring.).","rendered_text_plain":"The presumption of obviousness based on a reference disclosing structurally similar compounds may be overcome where there is evidence showing there is no reasonable expectation of similar properties in structurally similar compounds. In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (appellant produced sufficient evidence to establish a substantial degree of unpredictability in the pertinent art area, and thereby rebutted the presumption that structurally similar compounds have similar properties); In reSchechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953). See also Ex parte Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (Claims directed to compounds containing a 7-membered ring were rejected as prima facie obvious over a reference which taught 5- and 6-membered ring homologs of the claimed compounds. The Board reversed the rejection because the prior art taught that the compounds containing a 5-membered ring possessed the opposite utility of the compounds containing the 6-membered ring, undermining the examiner’s asserted prima facie case arising from an expectation of similar results in the claimed compounds which contain a 7-membered ring.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212416","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_tut7okff","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tut7okff","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"Ex parte Blattner","all_citations":["2 USPQ2d 2047"],"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"BPAI"},{"id":"pb_33suxdoo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_33suxdoo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"VI. IF PRIOR ART COMPOUNDS HAVE NO UTILITY, OR UTILITY ONLY AS INTERMEDIATES,\n CLAIMED STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS MAY NOT BE PRIMA FACIE\n OBVIOUS OVER THE PRIOR ART ","rendered_text_plain":"VI. IF PRIOR ART COMPOUNDS HAVE NO UTILITY, OR UTILITY ONLY AS INTERMEDIATES, CLAIMED STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS MAY NOT BE PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUS OVER THE PRIOR ART","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.10","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"VI. IF PRIOR ART COMPOUNDS HAVE NO UTILITY, OR UTILITY ONLY AS INTERMEDIATES, CLAIMED STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS MAY NOT BE PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUS OVER THE PRIOR ART","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_ub555rub","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ub555rub","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"If the prior art does not teach any specific\n or significant utility for the disclosed compounds, then the prior art is unlikely to\n render structurally similar claims prima facie obvious in the\n absence of any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the reference\n compounds or any structurally related compounds. In reStemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971).","rendered_text_plain":"If the prior art does not teach any specific or significant utility for the disclosed compounds, then the prior art is unlikely to render structurally similar claims prima facie obvious in the absence of any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the reference compounds or any structurally related compounds. In reStemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212450","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_rhkh7nw5","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rhkh7nw5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"See alsoIn reAlbrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 1396, 185 USPQ 585, 590 (CCPA 1975)\n (prior art reference studied the local anesthetic activity of various compounds, and\n taught that compounds structurally similar to those claimed were irritating to human\n skin and therefore “cannot be regarded as useful anesthetics.” 514 F.2d at 1393, 185\n USPQ at 587).","rendered_text_plain":"See alsoIn reAlbrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 1396, 185 USPQ 585, 590 (CCPA 1975) (prior art reference studied the local anesthetic activity of various compounds, and taught that compounds structurally similar to those claimed were irritating to human skin and therefore “cannot be regarded as useful anesthetics.” 514 F.2d at 1393, 185 USPQ at 587).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212480","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_ihxaihhd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ihxaihhd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"Similarly, if the prior art merely discloses compounds as\n intermediates in the production of a final product, one of ordinary skill in the art\n would not ordinarily stop the reference synthesis and investigate the intermediate\n compounds with an expectation of arriving at claimed compounds which have different\n uses. In reLalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984).","rendered_text_plain":"Similarly, if the prior art merely discloses compounds as intermediates in the production of a final product, one of ordinary skill in the art would not ordinarily stop the reference synthesis and investigate the intermediate compounds with an expectation of arriving at claimed compounds which have different uses. In reLalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212493","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"cs_ul5jxcwv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ul5jxcwv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"short_name":"In re Lalu","all_citations":["747 F.2d 703","223 USPQ 1257"],"canonical_citation":"In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"pb_6feenull","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6feenull","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"VII. PRIMA FACIE CASE REBUTTABLE BY EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED\n RESULTS","rendered_text_plain":"VII. PRIMA FACIE CASE REBUTTABLE BY EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED RESULTS","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212153/b.12","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"VII. PRIMA FACIE CASE REBUTTABLE BY EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED RESULTS","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_zcph354o","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zcph354o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"A prima facie case of obviousness based on\n structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess\n unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (affidavit evidence\n which showed that claimed triethylated compounds possessed anti-inflammatory activity\n whereas prior art trimethylated compounds did not was sufficient to overcome\n obviousness rejection based on the homologous relationship between the prior art and\n claimed compounds); In reWiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967) (a 7-fold\n improvement of activity over the prior art held sufficient to rebut prima\n facie obviousness based on close structural similarity).","rendered_text_plain":"A prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (affidavit evidence which showed that claimed triethylated compounds possessed anti-inflammatory activity whereas prior art trimethylated compounds did not was sufficient to overcome obviousness rejection based on the homologous relationship between the prior art and claimed compounds); In reWiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967) (a 7-fold improvement of activity over the prior art held sufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness based on close structural similarity).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212517","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_hkxa6brk","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hkxa6brk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"However, a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested\n by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit\n of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior\n art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are\n determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a\n particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art,\n applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the\n claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,\n 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).","rendered_text_plain":"However, a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212538","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"},{"id":"pb_pdlxjw3h","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_pdlxjw3h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of\n evidence alleging unexpectedly advantageous or superior results.","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of evidence alleging unexpectedly advantageous or superior results.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212544","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ox3ptyfq"}],"edges":[{"id":"e_okrjjqqm","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_lanolvkh","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":170,"end":183}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24bfd_186b8_272","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ofd7rmuy","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_lanolvkh","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2144.04","target_anchor":"d0e210929","source_offset":{"start":474,"end":488}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24bfd_186b8_272","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_walw5fyt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_osusgxwu","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":354,"end":364}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_az25sehv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_4hrde43d","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":413,"end":424}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ckxt3pkf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_borzbjt5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 55 USPQ2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","source_offset":{"start":482,"end":494},"pincite":"1370"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_la7vs3mh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_qepzsn2p","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":714,"end":727},"pincite":"1403"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_3qvcvsb2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_phx335og","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (BPAI 1985)","source_offset":{"start":855,"end":869}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_7cknn3y2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3fmkxuom","target_id":"cs_mv5qxm5i","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (BPAI 1993)","source_offset":{"start":993,"end":1011}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210592","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_dwwi3fm4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yhodxw4k","target_id":"cs_6f3vco7s","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":312,"end":326},"pincite":"994-95"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210623","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_rilxtqee","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yhodxw4k","target_id":"cs_z3tbney4","properties":{"citation_text":"Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","source_offset":{"start":393,"end":454},"pincite":"1368"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210623","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_x5isjxto","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdbdweko","target_id":"cs_sqnkmu7q","properties":{"citation_text":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)","source_offset":{"start":702,"end":732},"pincite":"417"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210645","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_zaz44ut2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdbdweko","target_id":"cs_uyb6kkqz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":1496,"end":1517}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210645","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_b7o7tmiy","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_gdbdweko","target_id":"se_plhga3lr","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2143","target_anchor":"d0e209516","source_offset":{"start":895,"end":906}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210645","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_abjacqu7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_gdbdweko","target_id":"se_fuww6hpn","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":933,"end":944}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210645","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_giqqo2oa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dgthgmp","target_id":"cs_uacdxvss","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","source_offset":{"start":295,"end":305},"pincite":"987"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210667","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_fdmdedo6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dgthgmp","target_id":"cs_e4j4zlhc","properties":{"citation_text":"Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":514,"end":570},"pincite":"1323"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210667","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h37srnvr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dgthgmp","target_id":"cs_ol5fs4jd","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":779,"end":792}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210667","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_drtg5nkw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2dgthgmp","target_id":"cs_wn2jzmqp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":853,"end":865}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210667","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_yudxrgj7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_knfaary6","target_id":"se_fuww6hpn","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":15}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210713","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hma3fh2w","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yus42vis","target_id":"cs_snlof5b5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":230,"end":241},"pincite":"826"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210723","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_nleq4hfb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yus42vis","target_id":"cs_rrghsvh5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976)","source_offset":{"start":882,"end":896},"pincite":"750"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210723","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4unyoq6q","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7iflxfek","target_id":"cs_zfsyd2a3","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":107,"end":117}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210736","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_b2swtr6d","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7iflxfek","target_id":"cs_p6kgvj76","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 201 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":299,"end":310}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210736","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sdau4npv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_7iflxfek","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":43,"end":56}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210736","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5lbvdtin","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kx2b6pfe","target_id":"cs_droeqqkr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000)","source_offset":{"start":161,"end":175},"pincite":"1315"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210785","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_keihjlcu","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_kx2b6pfe","target_id":"se_fdd4mef6","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 1216.01","target_anchor":"d0e130981","source_offset":{"start":246,"end":260}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210785","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cror65n2","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_dmebcf5l","target_id":"st_yognfahk","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.113","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":323,"end":335}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210798","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_m4c2tniz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_52d74i7n","target_id":"cs_nqhi2gnj","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":245,"end":257},"pincite":"1091"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_3ab82_19d76_116","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_qmjgly2b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_52d74i7n","target_id":"cs_c3ei3uoo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961)","source_offset":{"start":318,"end":341}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_3ab82_19d76_116","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_owlbtxl4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_52d74i7n","target_id":"cs_chfiiztq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 176 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":774,"end":783},"pincite":"1407"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_3ab82_19d76_116","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4qusdqzr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_52d74i7n","target_id":"cs_2gicmniz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001)","source_offset":{"start":1708,"end":1719},"pincite":"1385"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_3ab82_19d76_116","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_nm5zfkhe","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cd3wtm6y","target_id":"cs_p6kgvj76","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 201 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":783,"end":794},"pincite":"1167-68"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210822","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xhctk2wl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cd3wtm6y","target_id":"cs_j6dexxql","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 178 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":1037,"end":1048},"pincite":"1370"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210822","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_bebad3z2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xnu5bggp","target_id":"cs_onikfzal","properties":{"citation_text":"Arendi v. Apple, 832 F.3d 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":991,"end":1006}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210837","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5ttdo7nj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xnu5bggp","target_id":"cs_ylmzewgs","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 121 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","source_offset":{"start":1221,"end":1233},"pincite":"1361"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210837","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ywxtagem","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2v74xeni","target_id":"cs_zfsyd2a3","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":331,"end":341},"pincite":"945-46"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210857","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ya3xusbt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2v74xeni","target_id":"cs_t4rsz5vz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943)","source_offset":{"start":623,"end":638},"pincite":"713"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210857","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_obctm7jb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_aaebzr6k","target_id":"st_de6qpfdb","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.111(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":413,"end":428}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210882","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pwbipeqf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_aaebzr6k","target_id":"st_mxaiypgi","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.104(d)(2)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":1071,"end":1089}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210882","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_gmazjyek","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_wz52fmad","target_id":"se_ypzcynhh","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 706.07(a)","target_anchor":"d0e68889","source_offset":{"start":743,"end":759}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210907","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_42rqb22v","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3ztdshqq","target_id":"st_yognfahk","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.113","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":832,"end":844}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210917","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_aieitjjq","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_i3uwxc3d","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2144","target_anchor":"d0e210576","source_offset":{"start":16,"end":27}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210937","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_zvzlxbqk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_usq4tpit","target_id":"cs_k7w5rfyd","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210947","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sujrce3q","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_usq4tpit","target_id":"cs_s23qaemd","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356 (BPAI 1965)","source_offset":{"start":683,"end":698}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210947","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6gdbw67x","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b5uq3hjc","target_id":"cs_kiz7sm7g","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210965","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_s4s6qwad","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b5uq3hjc","target_id":"cs_ja7yguhm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":938,"end":949}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210965","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ghx4uyzo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b5uq3hjc","target_id":"cs_5yxtukl5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":1189,"end":1200}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210965","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_mcygyacm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zpgwkz2w","target_id":"cs_4taw2nba","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966)","source_offset":{"start":101,"end":110}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e210986","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5oqehuv6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lqmaxlwn","target_id":"cs_f6w2ci7z","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11},"pincite":"95"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211002","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_u4q4x3fx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zuf2d6ha","target_id":"cs_3jofubk6","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211018","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5pjz7wvy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zuf2d6ha","target_id":"cs_dfgr2rmc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)","source_offset":{"start":364,"end":378}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211018","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kcanauhk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tzu63uci","target_id":"cs_c7p6g2l3","properties":{"citation_text":"Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":3,"end":27}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211026","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_2hmkscko","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ippcehti","target_id":"cs_tsksn4jz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211045","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ovtlmuzr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b6ngf2a5","target_id":"cs_taurjnni","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (BPAI 1959)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":14}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211057","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_crcowa2r","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b6ngf2a5","target_id":"cs_vqferj75","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)","source_offset":{"start":392,"end":404}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211057","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_jv7rfavv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b6ngf2a5","target_id":"cs_iuflx5yr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)","source_offset":{"start":565,"end":576}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211057","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_tb5pah37","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lxzhhak5","target_id":"cs_kz42dil4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":13}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211091","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ol2lexow","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6gtwe35s","target_id":"cs_ja7yguhm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11},"pincite":"968"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211103","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_qrvg2pkq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6gtwe35s","target_id":"cs_3gmhwvkw","properties":{"citation_text":"Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":587,"end":609}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211103","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cxukbgtd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_izbh3trl","target_id":"cs_p7vpczqj","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":12},"pincite":"523"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211124","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xuy5dywf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_44hwu6g6","target_id":"cs_e72vmygc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":13}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211136","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_q2p5brfl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qbm7xyyi","target_id":"cs_655uoph7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211145","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cedjb2x3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hpdu2pei","target_id":"cs_xdflhn5i","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211165","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_uf4wsuns","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_coxsnpy6","target_id":"cs_b2jfougl","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211177","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_djwo7eli","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gztlbo6q","target_id":"cs_7ucdj5kv","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":12}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211189","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_bijgj6hu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gztlbo6q","target_id":"cs_5yxtukl5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":304,"end":315}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211189","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kx3gr2fb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v5oxksum","target_id":"cs_zxqm4mys","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":223,"end":237}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211207","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pyrzvu3p","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_56iybnlk","target_id":"cs_z2l2mwif","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1966)","source_offset":{"start":390,"end":400}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211225","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6rw7kmmj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_56iybnlk","target_id":"cs_ap7fvf6h","properties":{"citation_text":"Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":1121,"end":1149}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211225","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_7nerqhj6","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_56iybnlk","target_id":"se_bkc3kz5p","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2113","target_anchor":"d0e201450","source_offset":{"start":1209,"end":1220}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211225","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sizhyilo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ivjinmac","target_id":"cs_dbrwi4sx","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Stern, 13 USPQ2d 1379 (BPAI 1987)","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":22}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211234","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_f6oe55ej","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5pahgd4p","target_id":"se_k2zrlxyl","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2131.03","target_anchor":"d0e203269","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":18}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211259","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h7absjgn","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5pahgd4p","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":99,"end":112}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211259","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_t72r6vaa","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5pahgd4p","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":117,"end":130}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211259","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_jh5luemx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_5pahgd4p","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":131,"end":134}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211259","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5qt4srzd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_dsfcrfat","target_id":"cs_ja7kvm7m","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)","source_offset":{"start":137,"end":150}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_edfzdxwt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_dsfcrfat","target_id":"cs_jfn25754","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":191,"end":204}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_47ipup4h","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_dsfcrfat","target_id":"cs_uq2g5lok","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":477,"end":490},"pincite":"1469-71"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_yexir34n","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_dsfcrfat","target_id":"cs_jziic6cb","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 49 USPQ 749 (CCPA 1941)","source_offset":{"start":1099,"end":1111},"pincite":"332"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_wnvdvdf6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_go7djej5","properties":{"citation_text":"Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":144,"end":184},"pincite":"783"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_55foq2td","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_d35p7zew","properties":{"citation_text":"Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997)","source_offset":{"start":670,"end":725}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sfydcht2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_cnst55ow","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)","source_offset":{"start":914,"end":925},"pincite":"456"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4lhkhdjk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_y7lvllyh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946)","source_offset":{"start":1299,"end":1311},"pincite":"74-75"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_jbl5k6tu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_opachuq2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937)","source_offset":{"start":1475,"end":1487}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kdbszwl3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_n4trazjb","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934)","source_offset":{"start":1758,"end":1771},"pincite":"934"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_zwlrjkpl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_3hezvnhi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 20 USPQ 53 (CCPA 1933)","source_offset":{"start":2027,"end":2043},"pincite":"924"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_mbi6i6gx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_gbl2z7sn","properties":{"citation_text":"K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)","source_offset":{"start":2423,"end":2456}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_uxyed26m","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_75ohbujg","target_id":"cs_iimsa6uh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 126 USPQ2d 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","source_offset":{"start":2665,"end":2677},"pincite":"1177"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_212f6_1cb","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_opjrh5pw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yybzsdss","target_id":"cs_5nvtmhx4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","source_offset":{"start":158,"end":172},"pincite":"1330"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211314","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_akjgpvrl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yybzsdss","target_id":"cs_as73bgcx","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":246,"end":258}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211314","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_r4ilbyzk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yybzsdss","target_id":"cs_ntgjeh3h","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":833,"end":844},"pincite":"383"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211314","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kz36bk3i","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_yybzsdss","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2144.08","target_anchor":"d0e211596","source_offset":{"start":1097,"end":1111}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211314","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h3s725nm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gmnz72qo","target_id":"cs_n5m4uwdi","properties":{"citation_text":"Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":146,"end":193},"pincite":"1322"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211344","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_r4zgnuaq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_cnst55ow","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)","source_offset":{"start":387,"end":397},"pincite":"456"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_dj6zofmc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_wt2sivgf","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)","source_offset":{"start":1050,"end":1064}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ecncjm7z","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_cgyqu6ks","properties":{"citation_text":"Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":1420,"end":1456},"pincite":"809"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_r2advy2i","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_c4zclcvz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":1653,"end":1665},"pincite":"1149"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_gp2iiocz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_uq2g5lok","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":1949,"end":1962},"pincite":"1470"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_szbkbzun","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_z3rjei5g","properties":{"citation_text":"Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112 (1874)","source_offset":{"start":2254,"end":2270},"pincite":"118-19"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kq4rbfwa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_jz5wbkvk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)","source_offset":{"start":2371,"end":2385},"pincite":"438"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cuuwomg6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_azvtndve","target_id":"cs_sqnkmu7q","properties":{"citation_text":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)","source_offset":{"start":2847,"end":2877},"pincite":"416"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211361","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hfanaky2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4376hhdx","target_id":"cs_vueit7ls","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 123 USPQ2d 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","source_offset":{"start":494,"end":506},"pincite":"1346"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27905_260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kjqbcuh6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4376hhdx","target_id":"cs_ylmzewgs","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 121 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","source_offset":{"start":578,"end":590},"pincite":"1361"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27905_260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6rdxvpdo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4376hhdx","target_id":"cs_pjhtqk7b","properties":{"citation_text":"Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":857,"end":886},"pincite":"1362"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27905_260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6zmsdlcj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_46dppnp7","target_id":"cs_ana7fr52","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":125,"end":138}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211407","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h6qizqin","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_46dppnp7","target_id":"cs_kvbwp2sw","properties":{"citation_text":"KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)","source_offset":{"start":547,"end":585}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211407","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_i6wn6ap4","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_46dppnp7","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":1533,"end":1536}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211407","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sfvgciev","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_jfn25754","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":446,"end":459}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ohm6zigg","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_m42nebch","properties":{"citation_text":"Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916)","source_offset":{"start":518,"end":551},"pincite":"271"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_s3rzmyh6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_y7lvllyh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946)","source_offset":{"start":765,"end":777},"pincite":"74-75"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_tdsjf23j","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_opachuq2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937)","source_offset":{"start":990,"end":1002}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_2zjol5yz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_3hezvnhi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920 (CCPA 1933)","source_offset":{"start":1273,"end":1289},"pincite":"924"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_osnyskpl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_knzdjf3j","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 12 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1932)","source_offset":{"start":1609,"end":1620},"pincite":"675"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_wbztxzo3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkujvsvh","target_id":"cs_dyikruat","properties":{"citation_text":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":2198,"end":2233},"pincite":"693"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211429","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ffjzr33y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_y4t5fb6n","target_id":"se_dhztoi5s","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.02","target_anchor":"d0e92844","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":17}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d24dda_24da6_398","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vew3ibp3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ulzoykbf","target_id":"cs_cwtumisc","properties":{"citation_text":"U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)","source_offset":{"start":146,"end":159},"pincite":"51-2"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211447","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_52luugnx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ulzoykbf","target_id":"cs_e4hfytzh","properties":{"citation_text":"Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 90 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2009)","source_offset":{"start":196,"end":246},"pincite":"1326"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211447","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_v5ial4ce","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ulzoykbf","target_id":"cs_yrqtijqj","properties":{"citation_text":"Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 115 USPQ2d 2012 (Fed. Cir. 2015)","source_offset":{"start":518,"end":547},"pincite":"1305"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211447","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_m3mqpzyw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yqsmj5ll","target_id":"cs_uq2g5lok","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":37,"end":50},"pincite":"1471"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2ea26_27701_278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_z3brzooi","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_yqsmj5ll","target_id":"se_fuww6hpn","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":1577,"end":1588}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2ea26_27701_278","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_dko75vt4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hcbbk3e2","target_id":"cs_n5m4uwdi","properties":{"citation_text":"Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":269,"end":316},"pincite":"1322"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211459","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_3gpy5zwc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hcbbk3e2","target_id":"cs_iimsa6uh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 126 USPQ2d 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","source_offset":{"start":1535,"end":1547},"pincite":"1178"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211459","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_wgo77a7j","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_spulgtt7","target_id":"cs_hats7ho2","properties":{"citation_text":"E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 128 USPQ2d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","source_offset":{"start":237,"end":285},"pincite":"1008"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27a85_394","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_gsr3zbwp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_spulgtt7","target_id":"cs_kvbwp2sw","properties":{"citation_text":"KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)","source_offset":{"start":2309,"end":2347}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27a85_394","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_bxxmw4sl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ic4bumkg","target_id":"cs_pxufl57v","properties":{"citation_text":"Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 99 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","source_offset":{"start":389,"end":449},"pincite":"1306"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27c11_2b5","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5qsmzhdq","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ic4bumkg","target_id":"se_k2zrlxyl","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 2131.02","target_anchor":"d0e203166","source_offset":{"start":761,"end":776}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27c11_2b5","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ah7mnpta","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ic4bumkg","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"2144.08","target_anchor":"d0e211596","source_offset":{"start":791,"end":798}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_2e640_27c11_2b5","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_t4ko535y","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_u2jxds5w","target_id":"cs_dqro2pkh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":316,"end":330},"pincite":"850"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211491","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5rcsq4ip","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_u2jxds5w","target_id":"cs_b3sjrzhz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":568,"end":581}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211491","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vqhm57zo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_u2jxds5w","target_id":"cs_lumtezq5","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":909,"end":927}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211491","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kuj2xpkr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_u2jxds5w","target_id":"cs_whbvej2m","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":1038,"end":1052},"pincite":"1378-79"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211491","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xdjxuqyk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zvz7b2dy","target_id":"cs_yc45hdww","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)","source_offset":{"start":271,"end":280}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211529","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_j5zjlol3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zvz7b2dy","target_id":"cs_qmwoozw2","properties":{"citation_text":"Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (BPAI 1980)","source_offset":{"start":629,"end":643}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211529","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h6fffxz7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tprtpu5t","target_id":"cs_3zs6ebjt","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)","source_offset":{"start":138,"end":147}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211549","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4rqvf4pa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rjuunzuz","target_id":"cs_lh7nuekz","properties":{"citation_text":"Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)","source_offset":{"start":133,"end":177}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211566","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_asf4gs4a","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7kqy3akm","target_id":"cs_efufykyn","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":20}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211578","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_to4gbwaw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7kqy3akm","target_id":"cs_txs66rq4","properties":{"citation_text":"Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":186,"end":210}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211578","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_uo4gjodd","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_p4y76nw6","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":334,"end":347}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_2387d_52","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_nkbr3gje","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_p4y76nw6","target_id":"se_ncnabjqo","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e","source_offset":{"start":406,"end":417}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_2387d_52","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_3rrya5kj","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_p4y76nw6","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":532,"end":545}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_2387d_52","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_setvskj3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_i3sj6qns","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":518,"end":531}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211609","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_incevznz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_kvujqdfh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":335,"end":348},"pincite":"385"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_2z4zzr7l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_wn2jzmqp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":561,"end":573},"pincite":"692-93"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_w7fx45qr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_hqtzaml6","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 37 USPQ2d 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":801,"end":814},"pincite":"425"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sovtifl4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_fu7hriuj","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":873,"end":885},"pincite":"1572"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pvlajpyo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_ntgjeh3h","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":946,"end":957},"pincite":"382"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_lornh4nu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_ntgjeh3h","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":1172,"end":1183},"pincite":"382"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_uftqxn5e","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"cs_4hrde43d","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":1378,"end":1389},"pincite":"350"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_tp5f7fha","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":175,"end":188}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_36iotfns","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":437,"end":450}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hmxgjtea","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ofy36a6z","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":775,"end":788}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211635","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_lbsuqo2u","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdqd6365","target_id":"cs_t62lxxmt","properties":{"citation_text":"Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)","source_offset":{"start":75,"end":95}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211695","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pu3j3xug","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdqd6365","target_id":"cs_mu4ldazp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":197,"end":207},"pincite":"783"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211695","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vxd37icr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdqd6365","target_id":"cs_eq4f7kpc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":347,"end":362},"pincite":"1532"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211695","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_iaywo675","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gdqd6365","target_id":"cs_clkfneyi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":422,"end":435},"pincite":"1445"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211695","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ktv334px","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_wifzhgt7","target_id":"se_vsdgduqx","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 714.12","target_anchor":"d0e87869","source_offset":{"start":616,"end":630}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211742","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_omkykd2y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_wifzhgt7","target_id":"se_tlyqqa2f","properties":{"link_text":"715.09","target_anchor":"d0e91958","source_offset":{"start":644,"end":650}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211742","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_2trizq3v","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fhuvyv5p","target_id":"cs_t2hztewp","properties":{"citation_text":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":236,"end":270},"pincite":"1568"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211772","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_obwki5ow","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_fhuvyv5p","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":215,"end":228}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211772","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6apcj27t","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_fhuvyv5p","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":464,"end":467}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211772","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hzjzffsd","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_fhuvyv5p","target_id":"se_thigeixw","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2141.01(a)","target_anchor":"d0e208803","source_offset":{"start":533,"end":550}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211772","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_nhynhi7d","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_twakvb6t","target_id":"cs_rvqczbat","properties":{"citation_text":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":660,"end":694},"pincite":"1537"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211815","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_opesadfw","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_twakvb6t","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":806,"end":809}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211815","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_eimfbv6s","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_svim5m7w","target_id":"cs_m65eimdo","properties":{"citation_text":"Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 21 USPQ2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","source_offset":{"start":176,"end":204},"pincite":"718"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211828","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6ilke6ij","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_svim5m7w","target_id":"cs_yp6m3mzw","properties":{"citation_text":"Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 5 USPQ2d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":412,"end":447},"pincite":"1050"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211828","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_rivgaa3h","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_svim5m7w","target_id":"se_cmcfpoct","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2141.03","target_anchor":"d0e209393","source_offset":{"start":785,"end":799}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211828","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_s6noqswy","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_svim5m7w","target_id":"se_thigeixw","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 2141","target_anchor":"d0e208143","source_offset":{"start":897,"end":909}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211828","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4vgwwohj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_desjgme3","target_id":"cs_w64nik4j","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962)","source_offset":{"start":1219,"end":1233},"pincite":"681"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211864","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_y37fa3z5","edge_type":"quotes-from","source_id":"nq_b7yx2rco","target_id":"cs_w64nik4j","properties":{"quoted_text":"A simple calculation will show that, excluding isomerism within certain of the R groups, the limited class we find in Karrer contains only 20 compounds. However, we wish to point out that it is not the mere number of compounds in this limited class which is significant here but, rather, the total circumstances involved, including such factors as the limited number of variations for R, only two alternatives for Y and Z, no alternatives for the other ring positions, and a large unchanging parent structural nucleus. With these circumstances in mind, it is our opinion that Karrer has described to those with ordinary skill in this art each of the various permutations here involved as fully as if he had drawn each structural formula or had written each name.","quoted_text_sha256":"16e53e9fcf8d79ac060d3e9a513d4c23198a92e2165ab1b4ebd98f722e4070a2","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":762}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211890","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kjs7arkr","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_lmvqrhut","target_id":"st_fr6d3dd7","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":328,"end":344}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211894","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_zs4i3rsb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lkr24gzg","target_id":"cs_m42vqu2h","properties":{"citation_text":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":408,"end":437},"pincite":"807"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211921","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_j3trl74l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lkr24gzg","target_id":"cs_674ka3qk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 40 USPQ2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":935,"end":946},"pincite":"1430"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211921","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4soq3ozx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rrpfp6es","target_id":"cs_uz5wn5qr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":503,"end":514},"pincite":"1558"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211944","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_wjlxkl3d","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_froxii3j","target_id":"cs_4hrde43d","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":244,"end":255},"pincite":"350"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211959","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ta763o4s","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_froxii3j","target_id":"cs_rkngz42w","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":553,"end":563},"pincite":"445"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e211959","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5vxf67m6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hlgj3727","target_id":"cs_jo5qatux","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":811,"end":828},"pincite":"1096-97"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pqvtglpw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hlgj3727","target_id":"cs_citsnexy","properties":{"citation_text":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":996,"end":1005},"pincite":"1093-95"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_3uben2gh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hlgj3727","target_id":"cs_dk7hgj3f","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":1081,"end":1093},"pincite":"460"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sxgv5jsv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hlgj3727","target_id":"cs_54nduizn","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":1188,"end":1198},"pincite":"1344"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_okyuv35i","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hlgj3727","target_id":"cs_e33nnrmw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Druey, 319 F.2d 237, 138 USPQ 39 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":1275,"end":1286},"pincite":"240"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212008","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_c6q5s63a","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vmoqyajn","target_id":"cs_5iwn23ek","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":306,"end":321},"pincite":"586"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vyxjas7n","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vmoqyajn","target_id":"cs_fp2icyp4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 185 USPQ 585 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":501,"end":515},"pincite":"1392"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5evpjrcd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vmoqyajn","target_id":"cs_zuyyneo7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":1910,"end":1923},"pincite":"731"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_mbtx6kc2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vmoqyajn","target_id":"cs_dk7hgj3f","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":2411,"end":2423},"pincite":"461"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_bityg72x","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vmoqyajn","target_id":"cs_ol5fs4jd","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":2475,"end":2488},"pincite":"1016"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212039","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xatr2ffh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_l5o23c7u","target_id":"cs_zuyyneo7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":108,"end":121},"pincite":"732-33"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212088","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_o2ud7mqn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_l5o23c7u","target_id":"cs_2epiyttz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953)","source_offset":{"start":716,"end":731},"pincite":"191"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212088","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xuxqdfgl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_svm5qjjl","target_id":"cs_c4zclcvz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":103,"end":116},"pincite":"1149"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212131","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5ia23tl7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_svm5qjjl","target_id":"cs_t2hztewp","properties":{"citation_text":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":568,"end":602},"pincite":"1579"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212131","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hcase74g","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_7mg3ij2h","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":334,"end":347}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_238ed_1fa","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_y3y56mjm","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_7mg3ij2h","target_id":"se_ncnabjqo","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e","source_offset":{"start":406,"end":417}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_238ed_1fa","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_pihtazc6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_7mg3ij2h","target_id":"st_xlrajzkr","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":532,"end":545}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_238ed_1fa","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_h46rkpze","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ozpxr5al","target_id":"cs_4gm5l6fc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":377,"end":387},"pincite":"313"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212172","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_op5wvs2h","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ozpxr5al","target_id":"cs_kvujqdfh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":443,"end":455}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212172","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_gzjzkvj6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ozpxr5al","target_id":"cs_wn2jzmqp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":532,"end":543}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212172","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_dvy2zvw4","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ozpxr5al","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2144","target_anchor":"d0e210576","source_offset":{"start":615,"end":626}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212172","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_re2l2cxf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_d4qggvdp","target_id":"cs_dk7hgj3f","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":392,"end":403}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212209","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_kjqlmpuu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_d4qggvdp","target_id":"cs_citsnexy","properties":{"citation_text":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":454,"end":462}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212209","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_atub4pzq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_d4qggvdp","target_id":"cs_6l5fquop","properties":{"citation_text":"Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007)","source_offset":{"start":541,"end":581}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212209","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_6spzfbwo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v7cbbqre","target_id":"cs_7mg57fx2","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (BPAI 1950)","source_offset":{"start":200,"end":213}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212230","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_jinvaxi3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v7cbbqre","target_id":"cs_qcwxogzu","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":440,"end":450},"pincite":"221"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212230","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_5nz6nqve","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_j6aygwlj","target_id":"cs_qcwxogzu","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":155,"end":165}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_hqixoxw4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_j6aygwlj","target_id":"cs_g3pdkjtg","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":207,"end":220}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_4lhqrh3j","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_j6aygwlj","target_id":"cs_pw7qyby2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":418,"end":430}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212260","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_adxi7os4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_5zmsx7yc","target_id":"cs_4gm5l6fc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":126,"end":136}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212288","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_adl3cs7s","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kcus2nc3","target_id":"cs_p7kn632i","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":20}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212300","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_bzg2rpn5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kcus2nc3","target_id":"cs_q5mkn4nu","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":260,"end":283}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212300","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_mvyhehgn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kcus2nc3","target_id":"cs_wn2jzmqp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":553,"end":564}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212300","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_sekyoxtj","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_kcus2nc3","target_id":"se_dcag3ghv","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2144","target_anchor":"d0e210576","source_offset":{"start":941,"end":952}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212300","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_fppkytk2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wrmg7akl","target_id":"cs_zuyyneo7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":8,"end":20}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212330","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_oqethitu","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wrmg7akl","target_id":"cs_mu4ldazp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":191,"end":200}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212330","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vmyo6mhd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wrmg7akl","target_id":"cs_uz5wn5qr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":758,"end":768},"pincite":"1558-59"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212330","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_rqvfjta4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_s7uisy7s","target_id":"cs_rtz62ewl","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Maloney, 411 F.2d 1321, 162 USPQ 98 (CCPA 1969)","source_offset":{"start":207,"end":220},"pincite":"1323"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212371","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cknqxgbk","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_s7uisy7s","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":191,"end":204}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212371","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_grnfq76y","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ct2tktxn","target_id":"cs_64ef7fjc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":488,"end":501},"pincite":"274-75"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212380","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_vsihp6kx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_llug5ja4","target_id":"cs_4gm5l6fc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":14}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212389","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_xuu2dpf7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_llug5ja4","target_id":"cs_jjq7iazm","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Goldgaber, 41 USPQ2d 1172 (BPAI 1996)","source_offset":{"start":474,"end":492},"pincite":"1176"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212389","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_wsqa33gm","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_llug5ja4","target_id":"st_f5uoesa2","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":318,"end":331}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212389","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_lpa267zr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gzodaz3k","target_id":"cs_citsnexy","properties":{"citation_text":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":234,"end":242}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212416","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_seja4xjo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gzodaz3k","target_id":"cs_2epiyttz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953)","source_offset":{"start":504,"end":518}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212416","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_e7a3zvv2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gzodaz3k","target_id":"cs_tut7okff","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)","source_offset":{"start":568,"end":585}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212416","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_fqcaa4lz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ub555rub","target_id":"cs_5iwn23ek","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":323,"end":337}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212450","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_ohtqqwhy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rhkh7nw5","target_id":"cs_fp2icyp4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 185 USPQ 585 (CCPA 1975)","source_offset":{"start":8,"end":21},"pincite":"1396"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212480","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_jygujdhy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ihxaihhd","target_id":"cs_ul5jxcwv","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":316,"end":325}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212493","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_htm7hna7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zcph354o","target_id":"cs_kvujqdfh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":173,"end":185}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212517","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_cuutoxuj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zcph354o","target_id":"cs_g3pdkjtg","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":513,"end":526}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212517","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_eiojnhvz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hkxa6brk","target_id":"cs_wn2jzmqp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":602,"end":614},"pincite":"693"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212538","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}},{"id":"e_iu2cyzz4","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_pdlxjw3h","target_id":"se_dhztoi5s","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.02","target_anchor":"d0e92844","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":17}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2144.html","source_anchor":"d0e212544","source_sha256":"6e806faed269ae706a7567876dc0edb297e2b074dd1a7361c2b4df0fc31e8f11"}}]}}