{"section":{"filename":"s716.html","chapter":"700","section_number":"716","title":"Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","bytes":196442,"sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4","subsection_count":23,"max_depth":2,"subsections":[{"number":"716.01","title":"Generally Applicable Criteria","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":1},{"number":"716.01(a)","title":"Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness","revision_tag":"R-08.2017","depth":2},{"number":"716.01(b)","title":"Nexus Requirement and Evidence of Nonobviousness","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":2},{"number":"716.01(c)","title":"Probative Value of Objective Evidence","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":2},{"number":"716.01(d)","title":"Weighing Objective Evidence","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":2},{"number":"716.02","title":"Allegations of Unexpected Results","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":1},{"number":"716.02(a)","title":"Evidence Must Show Unexpected Results","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(b)","title":"Burden on Applicant","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(c)","title":"Weighing Evidence of Expected and Unexpected Results","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(d)","title":"Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(e)","title":"Comparison With Closest Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(f)","title":"Advantages Disclosed or Inherent","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":2},{"number":"716.02(g)","title":"[Reserved]","revision_tag":null,"depth":2},{"number":"716.03","title":"Commercial Success","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":1},{"number":"716.03(a)","title":"Commercial Success Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":2},{"number":"716.03(b)","title":"Commercial Success Derived From Claimed Invention","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":2},{"number":"716.04","title":"Long-Felt Need and Failure of Others","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":1},{"number":"716.05","title":"Skepticism of Experts","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":1},{"number":"716.06","title":"Copying","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":1},{"number":"716.07","title":"Inoperability of References","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":1},{"number":"716.08","title":"Utility and Operability of Applicant’s Disclosure","revision_tag":"R-08.2012","depth":1},{"number":"716.09","title":"Sufficiency of Disclosure","revision_tag":"R-11.2013","depth":1},{"number":"716.10","title":"Attribution Affidavit or Declaration to Overcome Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","depth":1}]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"716","cases":[{"key":"case:851f.2d1387","slug":"demaco-corp-v-f-von-langsdorff-licensing-ltd","short_name":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.","canonical_citation":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Nexus designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention, such that the evidence is of probative value in the nonobviousness determination.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":6,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:100f.3d135","slug":"in-re-huang","short_name":"In re Huang","canonical_citation":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (1996)","decision_year":1996,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The applicant bears the burden of providing hard evidence of commercial success and of establishing a nexus between objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention, since the Office cannot gather such evidence itself.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":5,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:902f.2d943","slug":"in-re-eli-lilly-co","short_name":"In re Eli Lilly & Co.","canonical_citation":"In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Once rebuttal evidence is presented, obviousness must be redetermined on the totality of the evidence; facts established by rebuttal evidence are weighed with the facts underlying the prima facie case, not against the conclusion itself, and a suggestion to combine may rest on legal precedent.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:383u.s.39","slug":"united-states-v-adams","short_name":"United States v. Adams","canonical_citation":"United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966)","decision_year":1966,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Combining known prior art elements does not render an invention obvious when the results would not have been predictable to one of ordinary skill; prior art that teaches away, including known disadvantages in old devices that would discourage the search, supports nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:776f.2d281","slug":"ashland-oil-inc-v-delta-resins-refractories-inc","short_name":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Evidence of secondary considerations must have a nexus to the claimed invention to be given substantial weight in the obviousness determination, and once the Office establishes a prima facie case of obviousness the burden shifts to the applicant to produce contrary evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:81f.4th1202","slug":"volvo-penta-of-the-americas-llc-v-brunswick-corp","short_name":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp.","canonical_citation":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (2023)","decision_year":2023,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A presumption of nexus for secondary considerations requires that the product both embody the claimed invention and be coextensive with it; even absent the presumption, nexus may be proven independently through evidence of commercial success and copying due to the unique features of the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:639f.3d1057","slug":"in-re-kao","short_name":"In re Kao","canonical_citation":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","decision_year":2011,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"When secondary considerations are present, though not always dispositive, it is error not to consider them; but where the offered evidence results from something other than what is both claimed and novel, there is no nexus. Instructional limitations added to known methods require a new and nonobvious functional relationship.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:736f.2d699","slug":"in-re-de-blauwe","short_name":"In re De Blauwe","canonical_citation":"In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Attorney argument cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence; unexpected results must be established by factual evidence such as comparative test data against the closest prior art, and unsupported assertions constitute mere argument.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:457f.2d506","slug":"in-re-lindner","short_name":"In re Lindner","canonical_citation":"In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (1972)","decision_year":1972,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A single test is insufficient to establish unexpected results where there is no adequate basis for concluding that the other claimed compounds would behave the same way; unexpected results must be shown by factual evidence, not mere argument.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:21uspq2d1058","slug":"ex-parte-george","short_name":"Ex parte George","canonical_citation":"Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (BPAI 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence, such as comparative testing against the closest prior art; an applicant's mere assertions of unexpected results are not evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:484f.2d1395","slug":"in-re-brandstadter","short_name":"In re Brandstadter","canonical_citation":"In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Affidavits stating only conclusions or opinions, without supporting facts, carry little weight; where a computer invention was disclosed only through broad block diagrams without flowcharts or program listings, conclusory affidavits did not establish sufficiency of the disclosure.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:816f.2d643","slug":"in-re-chupp","short_name":"In re Chupp","canonical_citation":"In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Evidence of superior and unexpected properties in one of a spectrum of common properties can suffice to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness; an applicant need not show unexpected results over every property, but objective evidence does not by itself mandate a conclusion of patentability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:745f.2d1468","slug":"in-re-piasecki","short_name":"In re Piasecki","canonical_citation":"In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case and the applicant presents rebuttal evidence, the obviousness determination must be reconsidered on the entire record; rebuttal evidence may relate to any of the Graham factors, including secondary considerations, and declarations on the need for the invention may not be improperly discounted.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:864f.2d757","slug":"newell-cos-inc-v-kenney-mfg-co","short_name":"Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A sufficiently strong prima facie case of obviousness may outweigh evidence of secondary considerations, although all relevant rebuttal evidence must still be weighed rather than summarily dismissed.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:22uspq2d1318","slug":"ex-parte-gelles","short_name":"Ex parte Gelles","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Characterizing comparative results as differences in degree versus differences in kind has little meaning in a relevant legal sense when assessing whether results are unexpected.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:65f.4th679","slug":"ucb-inc-v-actavis-labs-ut-inc","short_name":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc.","canonical_citation":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","decision_year":2023,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"If the prior art discloses a point within a claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. For obviousness of ranges, a difference of degree is less persuasive than a difference in kind, and a reference expressing only a general preference for an alternative does not teach away.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:606f.2d303","slug":"in-re-payne","short_name":"In re Payne","canonical_citation":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, since such a rejection entails the motivation to make the claimed compound in the expectation that structurally similar compounds have similar properties.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:553f.2d1261","slug":"in-re-nolan","short_name":"In re Nolan","canonical_citation":"In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 193 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1977)","decision_year":1977,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence offered to show unexpected results must permit assessment of the practical significance of the data; conclusory assertions unsupported by an adequate basis for comparison are not entitled to weight.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:372f.2d535","slug":"in-re-gershon","short_name":"In re Gershon","canonical_citation":"In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of nonobviousness; a decrease in dental enamel solubility from adding an acidic buffering agent was expected from the prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:10uspq2d1454","slug":"ex-parte-standish","short_name":"Ex parte Standish","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (BPAI 1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"An application claim to the same patentable invention claimed in a domestic patent requires an interference rather than a Rule 1.131 affidavit; and asserting a product was \"constructed according to\" the claims does not establish the nexus needed to tie commercial success to the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:776f.2d309","slug":"pentec-inc-v-graphic-controls-corp","short_name":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.","canonical_citation":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Prior art is analogous when it addresses the problem confronting the inventor, such as hinge and fastener art for a pen-holding means; commercial success may be attributable to extensive advertising and pre-existing market leadership rather than the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:770f.2d1015","slug":"cable-electric-products-inc-v-genmark-inc","short_name":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Gross sales figures do not demonstrate commercial success absent evidence of market share, the sales time period, or what sales would normally be expected in the market.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:175f.3d1356","slug":"midwest-indus-inc-v-karavan-trailers-inc","short_name":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","decision_year":1999,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Overrules earlier circuit precedent on other grounds, leaving intact the principle that gross sales figures do not demonstrate commercial success absent evidence of market share.","holding_confidence":"low","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:713f.2d693","slug":"environmental-designs-ltd-v-union-oil-co","short_name":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.","canonical_citation":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The level of ordinary skill in the art is resolved by weighing factors such as the types of problems encountered, prior art solutions, rapidity of innovation, sophistication of the technology, and workers' educational level; not every factor need be present in a given case.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:859f.3d1341","slug":"emerachem-holdings-llc-v-volkswagen-grp-of-am-inc","short_name":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.","canonical_citation":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","decision_year":2017,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An affidavit or declaration that is only a naked assertion of inventorship, providing no context, explanation, or evidence to support the assertion, is insufficient to establish that relied-upon subject matter was the inventor's own work.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:687f.2d459","slug":"in-re-debaun","short_name":"In re DeBaun","canonical_citation":"In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)","decision_year":1982,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"The inventor of an element per se and the inventor of that element in a combination may differ, and combination claims do not evidence inventorship of unclaimed individual elements; an inventor's own work cannot be applied against the application absent a statutory time bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:276f.2d393","slug":"in-re-rothermel","short_name":"In re Rothermel","canonical_citation":"In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960)","decision_year":1960,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence traversing a rejection must be timely or seasonably filed to be entered and considered.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:713f.2d1530","slug":"stratoflex-inc-v-aeroquip-corp","short_name":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.","canonical_citation":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Prior art from a different but related field (rubber hose art) is analogous where practitioners face the same problem, such as electrostatic buildup from fuel flow; and the obviousness question is not whether the differences from the prior art would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:383u.s.1","slug":"graham-v-john-deere-co","short_name":"Graham v. John Deere Co.","canonical_citation":"Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)","decision_year":1966,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Obviousness is resolved through factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and secondary considerations such as commercial success, long-felt need, and failure of others.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:451f.2d1100","slug":"in-re-palmer","short_name":"In re Palmer","canonical_citation":"In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence of secondary considerations, when present, is relevant and must be considered as indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:471f.2d640","slug":"in-re-fielder","short_name":"In re Fielder","canonical_citation":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Objective evidence arising out of secondary considerations must always be considered when present en route to a determination of obviousness, as such evidence may illuminate the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject matter.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:425u.s.273","slug":"sakraida-v-ag-pro-inc","short_name":"Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976)","decision_year":1976,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Combining known prior art elements by known methods, with each element performing its established function and yielding only predictable results, supports a conclusion of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:396u.s.57","slug":"andersons-black-rock-inc-v-pavement-salvage-co","short_name":"Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.","canonical_citation":"Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)","decision_year":1969,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"A combination of old elements is obvious where the elements are combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions and yield only predictable results—mere convenience of uniting elements in one machine produces no new or different function.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:340u.s.147","slug":"great-atl-p-tea-co-v-supermarket-equip-corp","short_name":"Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp.","canonical_citation":"Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 87 USPQ 303 (1950)","decision_year":1950,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"A combination of familiar elements arranged with each performing its known function, yielding nothing more than predictable results, is obvious; combining old elements without change in their respective functions does not support patentability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:425u.s.219","slug":"dann-v-johnston","short_name":"Dann v. Johnston","canonical_citation":"Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976)","decision_year":1976,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"The mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish nonobviousness; the gap must be great enough to render the claim nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art, applying the Graham factors.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:785f.2d1029","slug":"in-re-margolis","short_name":"In re Margolis","canonical_citation":"In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Examiners must consider comparative data in the specification intended to illustrate the claimed invention when reaching a conclusion on the obviousness of the claims.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:997f.2d870","slug":"miles-labs-inc-v-shandon-inc","short_name":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc.","canonical_citation":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","decision_year":1993,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The absence of objective evidence of nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness; however, once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, failure to provide rebuttal evidence is dispositive.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:69f.4th1356","slug":"yita-llc-v-macneil-ip-llc","short_name":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC","canonical_citation":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (2023)","decision_year":2023,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness requires a nexus to the claimed invention; nexus is lacking where the secondary-considerations evidence relates only to a feature that was known in the prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:944f.3d1366","slug":"fox-factory-inc-v-sram-llc-2019","short_name":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC","canonical_citation":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (2019)","decision_year":2019,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"For objective evidence of nonobviousness to receive substantial weight there must be a nexus—a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the claimed invention; nexus is presumed only when the product tied to the evidence embodies the claimed invention and is coextensive with it.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:829f.3d1317","slug":"wbip-llc-v-kohler-co","short_name":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.","canonical_citation":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 119 USPQ2d 1301 (2016)","decision_year":2016,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness need not be tied exclusively to claim elements absent from the prior art; a patentee may show that the claimed combination as a whole serves as the nexus for the evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:813fed.appx.539","slug":"fox-factory-inc-v-sram-llc","short_name":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC","canonical_citation":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 813 Fed. Appx. 539, 2020 USPQ2d 10546 (Fed. Cir. 2020)","decision_year":2020,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The applicant or patent owner bears the burden of establishing a nexus between objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention; nexus is presumed only when the evidence is tied to a specific product that includes the claimed features and is coextensive with them.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:10f.4th1268","slug":"campbell-soup-co-v-gamon-plus-inc","short_name":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 2021 USPQ2d 875 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","decision_year":2021,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"As in the utility patent context, objective indicia of nonobviousness asserted for a design patent must be linked to the claimed design's unique characteristics.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:8f.4th1349","slug":"teva-pharms-intl-gmbh-v-eli-lilly-co","short_name":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co.","canonical_citation":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 2021 USPQ2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","decision_year":2021,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Objective indicia of nonobviousness must be linked to the unique characteristics of the claimed invention; secondary considerations resulting from something other than what is both claimed and novel lack the required nexus.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:632f.3d1358","slug":"tokai-corp-v-easton-enters-inc","short_name":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","decision_year":2011,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Commercial success offered as a secondary consideration must have a nexus to what is claimed and novel; if the commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:463f.3d1299","slug":"ormco-corp-v-align-technology-inc","short_name":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 79 USPQ2d 1931 (2006)","decision_year":2006,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks the required nexus if it relates exclusively to a feature that was known in the prior art rather than to the merits of the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:550u.s.398","slug":"ksr-intl-co-v-teleflex-inc","short_name":"KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.","canonical_citation":"KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)","decision_year":2007,"court":"SCOTUS","holding_summary":"Obviousness requires an explicit, flexible analysis that may draw on common sense rather than rigid rules; predictable uses of prior art elements according to their established functions, and choosing among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with reasonable expectation of success, support obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:835f.3d1406","slug":"veritas-techs-llc-v-veeam-software-corp","short_name":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.","canonical_citation":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","decision_year":2016,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"For nexus purposes, objective indicia of nonobviousness must be directed to what was not known in the prior art, which may well be the novel combination or arrangement of known individual elements.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:346f.2d600","slug":"in-re-schulze","short_name":"In re Schulze","canonical_citation":"In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965)","decision_year":1965,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence in the record, whether rebutting an obviousness rejection or responding to a reasonable challenge to the sufficiency of the disclosure.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:306f.2d908","slug":"in-re-chilowsky-1962","short_name":"In re Chilowsky","canonical_citation":"In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962)","decision_year":1962,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Expert opinion on an ultimate legal conclusion, such as whether an application satisfies 35 U.S.C. 112, is entitled to no weight, but the underlying facts supporting the opinion are entitled to some weight.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:385f.2d453","slug":"in-re-lindell","short_name":"In re Lindell","canonical_citation":"In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An affiant's opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence, but some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to that person.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:579f.2d86","slug":"in-re-oelrich","short_name":"In re Oelrich","canonical_citation":"In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ 210 (1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Factually based expert opinions on the level of ordinary skill in the art are probative of nonobviousness and can suffice to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:10uspq2d1922","slug":"ex-parte-gray","short_name":"Ex parte Gray","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"An applicant must present concrete factual evidence, not mere questioning or unsupported expert opinion, of a nonobvious difference between a claimed product and a substantially identical prior-art product; a publication's unsupported dismissal of the prior art was inadequate to overcome the rejection.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:601f.2d1184","slug":"in-re-carroll","short_name":"In re Carroll","canonical_citation":"In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An expert opinion on what the prior art taught, supported by documentary evidence and formulated before the claimed invention was made, is entitled to considerable deference.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:974f.2d1309","slug":"in-re-beattie","short_name":"In re Beattie","canonical_citation":"In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Office personnel should consider declarations from those skilled in the art praising the claimed invention and opining that the art teaches away; however, opinion declarations lacking factual support or failing to address the specific prior art carry little evidentiary weight.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:214uspq579","slug":"ex-parte-keyes","short_name":"Ex parte Keyes","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (BPAI 1982)","decision_year":1982,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"An applicant's own affidavit as to the advantages of the claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for that reason alone.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:203f.2d717","slug":"in-re-mckenna","short_name":"In re McKenna","canonical_citation":"In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953)","decision_year":1953,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An applicant's own affidavit as to the advantages of the claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for that reason alone.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:903f.3d1310","slug":"acorda-therapeutics-inc-v-roxane-lab-inc","short_name":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 128 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","decision_year":2018,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Conclusive proof of efficacy is not required to show a reasonable expectation of success for obviousness, and an earlier blocking patent can discount the significance of objective evidence that no one else developed or marketed the later-claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:977f.2d1443","slug":"in-re-oetiker","short_name":"In re Oetiker","canonical_citation":"In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"After an applicant submits evidence or argument in response to a rejection, patentability is determined on the totality of the record by a preponderance of the evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of argument.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:122f.3d1476","slug":"richardson-vicks-inc-v-the-upjohn-co","short_name":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co.","canonical_citation":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness, even when supported by substantial evidence of unexpected results and commercial success, may be insufficient to outweigh a strong prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:800f.2d1091","slug":"in-re-merck-co-inc","short_name":"In re Merck & Co., Inc.","canonical_citation":"In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A claimed compound or method may be prima facie obvious where structurally similar prior art compounds would have been expected to have similar activity, such as a known bioisosteric replacement; evidence of contemporaneous invention is probative of the level of knowledge in the art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:499f.2d1273","slug":"in-re-waymouth-1974","short_name":"In re Waymouth","canonical_citation":"In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 182 USPQ 290 (CCPA 1974)","decision_year":1974,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Unexpected results for a claimed range compared with the prior art range are shown by demonstrating a marked improvement over results at other ratios, amounting to a difference in kind rather than merely one of degree.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:371f.2d877","slug":"in-re-wagner","short_name":"In re Wagner","canonical_citation":"In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 152 USPQ 552 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Differences in properties between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be disregarded on the ground that they are differences in degree rather than in kind.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:771f.2d1496","slug":"in-re-corkill","short_name":"In re Corkill","canonical_citation":"In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A greater than expected result, such as an additive effect where a diminished result was expected, is evidence of nonobviousness; patentability during examination is determined by a preponderance of the totality of the evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:874f.2d804","slug":"merck-co-v-biocraft-labs-inc","short_name":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.","canonical_citation":"Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior art reference may be relied upon for all it reasonably discloses and suggests, including nonpreferred embodiments; a greater-than-additive, synergistic effect may evidence unexpected results but does not necessarily overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:19uspq2d1586","slug":"ex-parte-the-nutrasweet-co","short_name":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co.","canonical_citation":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (BPAI 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"A greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness; applicants must show results unexpectedly greater than the prior art would suggest and of significant practical advantage, particularly where the art creates a general expectation of synergistic effects.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:17uspq2d1716","slug":"ex-parte-a","short_name":"Ex parte A","canonical_citation":"Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"A compound not specifically named in a reference is anticipated by a generic formula only if the classes of substituents are sufficiently limited or well delineated. Also, unexpected superior therapeutic activity against a class of bacteria can rebut prima facie obviousness even without evidence of effectiveness against all bacteria.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:315f.2d381","slug":"in-re-papesch","short_name":"In re Papesch","canonical_citation":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)","decision_year":1963,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable, and the nonobviousness requirement of section 103 applies to chemical cases no differently than to other categories of invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:132uspq66","slug":"ex-parte-thumm","short_name":"Ex parte Thumm","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (BPAI 1961)","decision_year":1961,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Unexpected results support nonobviousness: evidence that the claimed range of a compound was effective for the intended purpose, where the prior art warned the compound had practically no effect, is evidence that the claimed invention is nonobvious.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:227uspq78","slug":"ex-parte-mead-johnson-co","short_name":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co.","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (BPAI 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"The absence of a property that the claimed invention would have been expected to possess based on the prior art is an unexpected result that can establish nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:27uspq2d1492","slug":"ex-parte-c","short_name":"Ex parte C","canonical_citation":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Selling inventive seeds to growers paid to increase stock, with on-sale contract aspects and no apparent confidentiality requirements, rises to a commercial public use bar; separately, alleged unexpected results fail without a basis for judging the practical significance of the data.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:24uspq2d1621","slug":"ex-parte-ishizaka","short_name":"Ex parte Ishizaka","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621 (BPAI 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Applicants bear the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:617f.2d272","slug":"in-re-boesch","short_name":"In re Boesch","canonical_citation":"In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)","decision_year":1980,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence of unexpected properties offered to show nonobviousness may take the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art, and the showing must be commensurate in scope with the claims.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:499f.2d1311","slug":"in-re-blondel","short_name":"In re Blondel","canonical_citation":"In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 182 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1974)","decision_year":1974,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Indirect comparative testing against the closest prior art can be sufficient evidence of unexpected results to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:439f.2d1237","slug":"in-re-fouche","short_name":"In re Fouche","canonical_citation":"In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"If claimed compositions are in fact useless, the specification cannot have taught how to use them, so a utility deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates an enablement deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112; abandoned applications may also be incorporated by reference like copending ones.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:602f.2d366","slug":"in-re-magerlein","short_name":"In re Magerlein","canonical_citation":"In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 202 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product when the intermediate is reasonably ascribed as the contributing cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property, which requires identifying that cause and establishing a nexus between intermediate and end product.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:574f.2d1082","slug":"in-re-may","short_name":"In re May","canonical_citation":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness, so an obviousness rejection may be sustained as anticipation on the same teachings without a new ground of rejection; stereoisomerism is a structural similarity supporting prima facie obviousness, and claiming an old composition by its result or property is anticipated.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:13uspq2d1383","slug":"ex-parte-blanc","short_name":"Ex parte Blanc","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (B.P.A.I. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness; where the prior art taught the effectiveness of a claimed antioxidant, the beneficial results of using it to inhibit discoloration or degradation during radiation sterilization would have been expected, supporting a reasonable expectation of success.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:622f.2d1029","slug":"in-re-clemens","short_name":"In re Clemens","canonical_citation":"In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (1980)","decision_year":1980,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Nonobviousness of a broad claimed range can be proven by unexpected results in a narrower range when a skilled artisan could ascertain a trend in the data allowing reasonable extension of its probative value; otherwise the objective evidence must be commensurate in scope with the entire claimed range.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:315f.3d1325","slug":"in-re-peterson","short_name":"In re Peterson","canonical_citation":"In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","decision_year":2003,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior art reference disclosing a range that encompasses a somewhat narrower claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; evidence of unexpected results must be reasonably commensurate with the entire claimed range to rebut it.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:713f.2d731","slug":"in-re-grasselli","short_name":"In re Grasselli","canonical_citation":"In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may support an obviousness rejection, and rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claims; evidence of superior properties for sodium alone cannot establish nonobviousness of broad alkali-metal claims.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:595f.2d48","slug":"in-re-kollman","short_name":"In re Kollman","canonical_citation":"In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Unexpected results from testing a narrower range can support the nonobviousness of a broader claimed range only if one of ordinary skill could determine a trend in the data allowing its probative value to be reasonably extended across the claimed range.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:284f.2d955","slug":"in-re-hill","short_name":"In re Hill","canonical_citation":"In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)","decision_year":1960,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, an applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to demonstrate the criticality of that range.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:592f.2d1175","slug":"in-re-burckel","short_name":"In re Burckel","canonical_citation":"In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)","decision_year":1979,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"To be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, an affidavit or declaration presenting comparative evidence must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:575f.2d865","slug":"in-re-merchant","short_name":"In re Merchant","canonical_citation":"In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Comparing the claimed invention with each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common, weighing the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually identify the closest single prior art reference for rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:174f.2d130","slug":"in-re-finley","short_name":"In re Finley","canonical_citation":"In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949)","decision_year":1949,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"When comparative evidence offered to show unexpected results does not use an identical embodiment of the reference disclosure, the deviations from the reference should be explained.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:280f.2d132","slug":"in-re-armstrong","short_name":"In re Armstrong","canonical_citation":"In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960)","decision_year":1960,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"When comparative test data deviate from the reference disclosure, the deviations should be noted, evaluated, and if significant, explained; deviations that are inconsequential do not undermine the comparison.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:584f.2d384","slug":"in-re-holladay","short_name":"In re Holladay","canonical_citation":"In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978)","decision_year":1978,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Applicants may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by comparing the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:217uspq265","slug":"ex-parte-humber","short_name":"Ex parte Humber","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (BPAI 1961)","decision_year":1961,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"An applicant may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by comparing the claimed invention against prior art closer to the invention than the art the examiner relied on; unexpected results shown over such closer compounds are probative.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:747f.2d1456","slug":"in-re-johnson-1984","short_name":"In re Johnson","canonical_citation":"In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 223 USPQ 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art references does not rebut prima facie obviousness unless the references are so similar that testing one provides the same information as to the other.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:815f.2d686","slug":"in-re-geiger","short_name":"In re Geiger","canonical_citation":"In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 2 USPQ2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An applicant showing unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art that actually exists, but is not required to compare it with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:357f.2d418","slug":"in-re-chapman","short_name":"In re Chapman","canonical_citation":"In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966)","decision_year":1966,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An applicant need not compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art; requiring comparison with a polymer merely suggested by the combined references would amount to comparing the invention's results with themselves.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:66f.3d292","slug":"in-re-chu","short_name":"In re Chu","canonical_citation":"In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","decision_year":1995,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A claim in a continuation-in-part application reciting a feature not disclosed or adequately supported in the parent application, but first introduced or supported in the CIP, is entitled only to the CIP's filing date.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:333f.2d924","slug":"in-re-zenitz","short_name":"In re Zenitz","canonical_citation":"In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964)","decision_year":1964,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence of an initially undisclosed property of a claimed compound—minimized side effects of hypotensive activity—must be considered in the obviousness analysis where that property would inherently flow from the use disclosed in the specification.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:212uspq103","slug":"ex-parte-sasajima","short_name":"Ex parte Sasajima","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103 (BPAI 1981)","decision_year":1981,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Evidence of unexpected results relating to a property not disclosed in the original application, such as the relative toxicity of a claimed pharmaceutical compound, must still be considered in evaluating nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:444f.2d599","slug":"in-re-saunders","short_name":"In re Saunders","canonical_citation":"In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 170 USPQ 213 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An inventor may permissibly shift during prosecution what is claimed as the invention, including to a formerly preferred embodiment, and the specification need not have disclosed proportions or values as critical for the applicant to later present evidence establishing their criticality.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:57f.3d1573","slug":"in-re-gpac","short_name":"In re GPAC","canonical_citation":"In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","decision_year":1995,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The level of ordinary skill in the art is determined by factors including the types of problems encountered, prior art solutions, rapidity of innovation, sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers; not every factor need be present, and evidence of copying by others may rebut obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:30f.3d1475","slug":"in-re-paulsen","short_name":"In re Paulsen","canonical_citation":"In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An applicant may act as their own lexicographer but must define terms with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision in the disclosure to displace ordinary meaning; broad terms like \"computer\" are not narrowed absent such definition, and commercial success of articles outside the claims is not probative of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:730f.2d1452","slug":"lindemann-maschinenfabrik-gmbh-v-american-hoist-derrick-co","short_name":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.","canonical_citation":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A specification need not disclose, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art; enablement is judged from the disclosure coupled with knowledge already available to those skilled in the art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:448f.2d791","slug":"in-re-tiffin-1971","short_name":"In re Tiffin","canonical_citation":"In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims; success of foam cups was not commensurate with claims to foam containers broadly.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:751f.supp.225","slug":"joy-technologies-inc-v-manbeck","short_name":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck","canonical_citation":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"D.D.C.","holding_summary":"Evidence of commercial success must be commensurate in scope with the claims and attributable to claimed features; where the features responsible for success appear only in narrower dependent claims, the evidence does not support the broader claims.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:253f.2d238","slug":"in-re-hollingsworth","short_name":"In re Hollingsworth","canonical_citation":"In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238, 117 USPQ 182 (CCPA 1958)","decision_year":1958,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Where claims recite a combination of ranges not shown in the prior art and substantial commercial success occurs at a typical point within those ranges, with operation throughout the ranges approximating that point, the commercial-success evidence is persuasive of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:470f.2d1380","slug":"in-re-mageli","short_name":"In re Mageli","canonical_citation":"In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380, 176 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Conclusory statements or opinions that increased sales were due to the merits of the invention are entitled to little weight in establishing commercial success as evidence of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:478f.2d1260","slug":"in-re-noznick-1973","short_name":"In re Noznick","canonical_citation":"In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Alleged commercial success must result from the merits of the claimed invention rather than from heavy promotion, advertising shifts, purchases by parties tied to the applicant, or other business events extraneous to the invention.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:15uspq2d1498","slug":"ex-parte-remark","short_name":"Ex parte Remark","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (BPAI 1990)","decision_year":1990,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"The evidentiary routine of shifting burdens used in civil proceedings is inappropriate in ex parte prosecution because the examiner has no means for adducing evidence; the applicant therefore bears the burden of producing evidence of commercial success.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:471f.2d690","slug":"in-re-fielder-1973","short_name":"In re Fielder","canonical_citation":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Commercial success may be attributable to factors other than the merits of the claimed invention, such as recent changes in related technology or consumer demand; success of a claimed voting ballot could be due to the contemporary drive toward automated data processing.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:755f.2d898","slug":"ewp-corp-v-reliance-universal-inc","short_name":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc.","canonical_citation":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness must be carefully appraised, because licensing programs may succeed for reasons unrelated to the merits of the invention, such as mutual benefit or avoiding litigation costs.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:802f.2d1367","slug":"hybritech-inc-v-monoclonal-antibodies-inc","short_name":"Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","decision_year":1986,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice; separately, a specification need not describe in detail—and preferably omits—what is well known in the art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:752f.2d1564","slug":"in-re-vamco-machine-tool-inc","short_name":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc.","canonical_citation":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"To be pertinent to nonobviousness, commercial success must flow from functions and advantages disclosed or inherent in the specification, and may not be attributable to improvements or modifications made by others.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:808f.3d829","slug":"merck-cie-v-gnosis-s-p-a","short_name":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.","canonical_citation":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 117 USPQ2d 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2015)","decision_year":2015,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Commercial success lacks the required nexus to the claimed invention where the success results from a unique combination of ingredients or synergistic interaction of components not attributable to the claimed method.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:728f.2d1423","slug":"litton-systems-inc-v-whirlpool-corp","short_name":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.","canonical_citation":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An application omitting a specification or claims is incomplete and not entitled to a filing date. In design cases, evidence of commercial success must be clearly attributable to the claimed design, not to brand recognition, performance, or other factors, to be probative of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:707f.2d1376","slug":"orthopedic-equipment-co-inc-v-all-orthopedic-appliances-inc","short_name":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Long-felt need as objective evidence of nonobviousness requires proof of prior unsuccessful attempts to solve the problem; achieving a desirable result is insufficient absent evidence that others tried and failed.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:436f.2d491","slug":"in-re-cavanagh","short_name":"In re Cavanagh","canonical_citation":"In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"To serve as evidence of nonobviousness based on long-felt need, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:988f.2d1165","slug":"texas-instruments-inc-v-intl-trade-commn","short_name":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n","canonical_citation":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","decision_year":1993,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated and efforts are made to solve it, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:570f.2d355","slug":"scully-signal-co-v-electronics-corp-of-america","short_name":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America","canonical_citation":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st Cir. 1977)","decision_year":1977,"court":"1st Cir.","holding_summary":"Failure to solve a long-felt need may be attributable to factors such as lack of interest or lack of appreciation of an invention's potential or marketability, rather than a want of technical know-how, so such factors must be considered in weighing long-felt need evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:443f.2d394","slug":"in-re-tiffin","short_name":"In re Tiffin","canonical_citation":"In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971), amended, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"An affidavit supporting long-felt need sworn by a licensee gains weight where a bona fide licensing agreement was entered at arm's length; the case also illustrates prima facie obviousness as a procedural tool allocating the burden of going forward.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:837f.2d469","slug":"in-re-dow-chemical-co","short_name":"In re Dow Chemical Co.","canonical_citation":"In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","decision_year":1988,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The skepticism of an expert, expressed before the inventors proved him wrong, is entitled to fair evidentiary weight as objective evidence of nonobviousness, as are the years of research that preceded the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:822f.2d1581","slug":"burlington-indus-inc-v-quigg","short_name":"Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Quigg","canonical_citation":"Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Judicial claim construction has no place in prosecution of pending claims, where ambiguity or excessive breadth may be corrected simply by amending the claim; separately, testimony that an invention met with initial incredulity and expert skepticism can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:392f.3d1317","slug":"iron-grip-barbell-co-inc-v-usa-sports-inc","short_name":"Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior art \"range\" can be established by multiple references rather than a single reference; a claimed value falling within the range collectively disclosed by the prior art may be prima facie obvious.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:616f.3d1231","slug":"wyers-v-master-lock-co","short_name":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co.","canonical_citation":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010)","decision_year":2010,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Following KSR, the scope of analogous art is construed broadly because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. Evidence of copying requires proof of efforts to replicate a specific product, such as internal documents, disassembly of a prototype, or access plus substantial similarity.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:941f.3d1133","slug":"liqwd-inc-v-loreal-usa-inc","short_name":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.","canonical_citation":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019)","decision_year":2019,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Evidence showing access to a competitor's non-public information and use of that information to develop a product may be persuasive evidence of copying as an objective indicator of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:816f.2d617","slug":"dow-chem-co-v-american-cyanamid-co","short_name":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.","canonical_citation":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","decision_year":1987,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Evidence that an alleged infringer tried for a substantial length of time to design a similar product or process, failed, and then copied the claimed invention instead is persuasive evidence of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:774f.2d1082","slug":"panduit-corp-v-dennison-mfg-co-1985","short_name":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.","canonical_citation":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Lapse of time bars a patent only in a priority contest involving abandonment, suppression, or concealment; copying by an infringer who failed after years of effort to design a similar product is persuasive evidence of nonobviousness.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:740f.2d1560","slug":"vandenberg-v-dairy-equipment-co","short_name":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co.","canonical_citation":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","decision_year":1984,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Evidence of copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness where the basic concepts of the claimed device, such as a plastic support using a ball and socket joint, were developed before the copier learned of the competitor's device.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:78f.2d199","slug":"metropolitan-eng-co-v-coe","short_name":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe","canonical_citation":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935)","decision_year":1935,"court":"D.C. Cir.","holding_summary":"The statutory presumption of patent validity includes a presumption of operability, so examiners should not express any opinion on the operability of a patent cited as a reference.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:629f.2d675","slug":"in-re-sasse","short_name":"In re Sasse","canonical_citation":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","decision_year":1980,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A prior art reference that expressly anticipates or makes obvious the claimed invention is presumed operable and enabling; the burden is on the applicant to rebut that presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:405f.2d1403","slug":"in-re-weber","short_name":"In re Weber","canonical_citation":"In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969)","decision_year":1969,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A patented process is presumed to produce the product or result described when used by one skilled in the art, and that presumption of operability is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the disclosure without obtaining the alleged product.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:162f.2d229","slug":"in-re-michalek","short_name":"In re Michalek","canonical_citation":"In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947)","decision_year":1947,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Skilled workers are presumed to make routine experiments and adaptations when desired results are not immediately obtained, so the failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding are not accorded great weight against a reference's operability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:179f.2d998","slug":"in-re-reid","short_name":"In re Reid","canonical_citation":"In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950)","decision_year":1950,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Skilled workers are presumed to make routine experiments and adaptations to achieve desired results, so failures by experimenters who have no interest in succeeding are not accorded great weight in assessing a reference's operability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:172f.2d560","slug":"in-re-shepherd","short_name":"In re Shepherd","canonical_citation":"In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949)","decision_year":1949,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Where an affidavit asserts inoperability only in features of a reference that are not relied upon, the reference remains effective as prior art as to its other, operative features.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:157f.2d198","slug":"in-re-crosby","short_name":"In re Crosby","canonical_citation":"In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946)","decision_year":1946,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Where an affidavit or declaration asserts that a relied-upon reference is inoperative, the applicant's claims must distinguish from the allegedly inoperative disclosure of the reference.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:32f.3d1559","slug":"in-re-epstein","short_name":"In re Epstein","canonical_citation":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","decision_year":1994,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Database printouts or abstracts that are not themselves prior art publications may properly be relied on as evidence that the products they reference were sold, released, or installed early enough to establish a public use or on-sale bar.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:217f.2d956","slug":"in-re-pio","short_name":"In re Pio","canonical_citation":"In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1954)","decision_year":1954,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"If a patent teaches or suggests the claimed invention, an affidavit or declaration by the patentee that they did not intend the disclosed invention to be used as claimed by the applicant is immaterial.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:434f.2d666","slug":"in-re-yale","short_name":"In re Yale","canonical_citation":"In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1970)","decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Evidence from a co-author confirming that a literature article misidentified a compound through a typographical error obvious to one of ordinary skill can persuasively show the erroneously identified compound was never placed in the public's possession.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:654f.2d103","slug":"in-re-howarth","short_name":"In re Howarth","canonical_citation":"In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981)","decision_year":1981,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"If practicing an invention requires chemicals or apparatus not readily available, the application must sufficiently disclose them. Evidence supplementing a facially deficient specification must establish that the missing information would have been known to skilled artisans; foreign specifications merely open for inspection abroad were insufficient to cure nonenablement.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:929f.2d660","slug":"in-re-buchner","short_name":"In re Buchner","canonical_citation":"In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A patent specification need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art; separately, declarations that merely express opinions or state conclusions without a nexus to supporting evidence have limited probative value in rebutting a prima facie case.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:189f.2d982","slug":"in-re-smyth","short_name":"In re Smyth","canonical_citation":"In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951)","decision_year":1951,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Affidavits opining what would be apparent to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts that the specification itself should recite.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:143f.2d974","slug":"in-re-oppenauer","short_name":"In re Oppenauer","canonical_citation":"In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944)","decision_year":1944,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Affidavits or declarations purporting to explain the disclosure or to interpret the disclosure of a pending application are usually not considered.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:220uspq446","slug":"glaser-v-strickland","short_name":"Glaser v. Strickland","canonical_citation":"Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (BPAI 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"Opinion testimony merely asserting that a claim or count is disclosed in an application should be given no weight, though the rationale for excluding affidavits interpreting a disclosure may be reexamined in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:687f.2d450","slug":"in-re-katz-1982","short_name":"In re Katz","canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)","decision_year":1982,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"\"Others\" under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) means any entity differing from the inventive entity by even one person; an inventor's own disclosure is not prior art against the inventor, since any other reading would negate the one-year grace period of 102(b).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:219uspq370","slug":"ex-parte-kroger","short_name":"Ex parte Kroger","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982)","decision_year":1982,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"A rejection based on a publication may stand despite the alleged inventors' declarations of sole inventorship where a nonapplicant co-author submits a letter asserting his own inventorship; such declarations alone do not establish that the applicants are the sole inventors.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:532f.2d1356","slug":"in-re-carreira","short_name":"In re Carreira","canonical_citation":"In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976)","decision_year":1976,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Disclaiming declarations by patentees that are directed only at the generic invention, rather than at the claimed species, are insufficient to establish derivation and remove the patents as references.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:717f.2d1346","slug":"in-re-costello","short_name":"In re Costello","canonical_citation":"In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","decision_year":1983,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior application's filing date cannot antedate a reference unless the later application properly claims benefit of the earlier one; a non-statutory-bar reference may be overcome by a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or a 1.132 attribution affidavit, and a deriver's disclosure does not bar a patent to the party from whom the subject matter was derived.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.132","slug":"37-cfr-1-132","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.132","mentions":15},{"key":"us_usc:35:102","slug":"35-usc-102","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102","mentions":13},{"key":"us_usc:35:112","slug":"35-usc-112","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112","mentions":7},{"key":"us_usc:35:103","slug":"35-usc-103","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103","mentions":6},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.130","slug":"37-cfr-1-130","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.130","mentions":3},{"key":"us_usc:35:101","slug":"35-usc-101","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 101","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.131","slug":"37-cfr-1-131","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.131","mentions":2},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.68","slug":"37-cfr-1-68","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.68","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:18:1001","slug":"18-usc-1001","canonical_citation":"18 U.S.C. 1001","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.116","slug":"37-cfr-1-116","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.116","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.114","slug":"37-cfr-1-114","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.114","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.53","slug":"37-cfr-1-53","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.53","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:41.33","slug":"37-cfr-41-33","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 41.33","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:282","slug":"35-usc-282","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 282","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:100","slug":"35-usc-100","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:41.203","slug":"37-cfr-41-203","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 41.203","mentions":1}],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:602","section_number":"602","title":"Oaths and Declarations","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:715","section_number":"715","title":"Swearing Behind a Reference — Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a)","exists":true,"mentions":3},{"key":"mpep:717","section_number":"717","title":"Prior Art Exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (2)","exists":true,"mentions":2},{"key":"mpep:1206","section_number":"1206","title":"Amendments and Affidavits or Other Evidence Filed With or After Appeal","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:1211","section_number":"1211","title":"Remand by Director or Board","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:1302","section_number":"1302","title":"Preparation of an Application for Allowance","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2107","section_number":"2107","title":"Guidelines for Examination of Applications for Compliance with the Utility Requirement","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2145","section_number":"2145","title":"Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence","exists":true,"mentions":5},{"key":"mpep:2153","section_number":"2153","title":"Prior Art Exceptions Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2154","section_number":"2154","title":"Provisions Pertaining to Subject Matter in a U.S. Patent or Application Effectively Filed Before the Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Invention","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2159","section_number":"2159","title":"Applicability Date Provisions and Determining Whether an Application Is Subject to the First Inventor To File Provisions of the AIA","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2164","section_number":"2164","title":"The Enablement Requirement","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2310","section_number":"2310","title":"Derivation Proceedings","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_moosgfuu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_moosgfuu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92085","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716","section_number":"716","chapter":"700","depth":0,"title":"Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections","children_ids":["sb_cvzka7dc","pb_krvknyau","pb_otruur2q","pb_vj4p5gjx","pb_mjvjrhhj","pb_ojackjdq","se_xcnhwfh5","se_bl65w3ts","se_la6ikj4f","se_faosk76v","se_owqbdbmw","se_sgq73pae","se_fduzxdgq","se_mhe5qudj","se_jxfmnqwm","se_ztb4getl"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022"},{"id":"ls_zrj5ux6e","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_zrj5ux6e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92097","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list","enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":1,"parent_list_item_id":null,"host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu","item_ids":["li_bepdivio"]},{"id":"li_bepdivio","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_bepdivio","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is\n                           rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection\n                           on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under\n                           this section.\n                        ","rendered_text_plain":"When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92097","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_zrj5ux6e","child_ids":null},{"id":"sb_cvzka7dc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/sb_cvzka7dc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92093","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statutory_block","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.132","citation_title_text":"37 CFR 1.132","heading":"Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections.","body_list_id":"ls_zrj5ux6e","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_krvknyau","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_krvknyau","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92100\">It is the responsibility of the primary examiner to personally review and\n                        decide whether affidavits or declarations under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> and other evidence\n                        submitted for the purpose of traversing grounds of rejection are responsive to the\n                        rejection and present sufficient facts to overcome the rejection. Publications may be\n                        evidence of the facts at issue and should be considered to the extent that they are\n                        probative and properly submitted. See <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92469\">MPEP § 716.01</a></b><i>et seq</i>.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"It is the responsibility of the primary examiner to personally review and decide whether affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 and other evidence submitted for the purpose of traversing grounds of rejection are responsive to the rejection and present sufficient facts to overcome the rejection. Publications may be evidence of the facts at issue and should be considered to the extent that they are probative and properly submitted. See MPEP § 716.01et seq.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92100","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_otruur2q","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_otruur2q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92106\">This rule sets forth the general policy of the Office consistently followed\n                        for a long period of time of receiving affidavit evidence traversing rejections or\n                        objections. All affidavits or declarations presented which do not fall within or under\n                        other specific rules are to be treated or considered as falling under this rule.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"This rule sets forth the general policy of the Office consistently followed for a long period of time of receiving affidavit evidence traversing rejections or objections. All affidavits or declarations presented which do not fall within or under other specific rules are to be treated or considered as falling under this rule.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92106","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_vj4p5gjx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vj4p5gjx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c40_1d611_1ea\">An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath\n                        before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See\n                        <b><a href=\"s602.html#d0e38244\">MPEP §\n                              602</a></b><i>et seq.</i> for additional information regarding formal requirements of\n                        affidavits. \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See MPEP § 602et seq. for additional information regarding formal requirements of affidavits.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1d611_1ea","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_mjvjrhhj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mjvjrhhj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c40_1d667_2f1\"><b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e320076\">37 CFR 1.68</a></b> permits a declaration to be\n                        used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the\n                        declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or\n                        imprisonment, or both (<b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411\">18\n                              U.S.C. 1001</a></b>) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or\n                        any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration\n                        that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements\n                        made on information and belief are believed to be true. \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1d667_2f1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"st_3zuoaecd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_3zuoaecd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.68","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.68"},{"id":"st_xfagkvpn","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_xfagkvpn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"18","authority_section_num":"1001","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"18 U.S.C. 1001"},{"id":"pb_ojackjdq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ojackjdq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92109\">Form paragraph <b><a href=\"#fp7.65\">7.65</a></b> or <b><a href=\"#fp7.66\">7.66</a></b> and any of form paragraphs\n                        <b><a href=\"#fp7.66.01\">7.66.01</a></b> through <b><a href=\"#fp7.66.05\">7.66.05</a></b>, as appropriate,\n                        should be used to comment on a <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> affidavit or\n                        declaration.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Form paragraph 7.65 or 7.66 and any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 through 7.66.05, as appropriate, should be used to comment on a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92109","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"fp_lyd4s3y4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_lyd4s3y4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.65","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_65","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_65","form_paragraph_number":"7.65","title":"Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Effective To Withdraw Rejection","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d379e9\">The <b id=\"\">[1]</b> under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                 1.132</a></b> filed <b id=\"\">[2]</b> is sufficient to overcome the rejection of\n                           claim <b id=\"\">[3]</b> based upon <b id=\"\">[4]</b>.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[{"index":1,"position_in_text":4,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":2,"position_in_text":33,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":3,"position_in_text":86,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":4,"position_in_text":101,"inferred_slot_type":null}],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_gx24c6m6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_gx24c6m6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66","form_paragraph_number":"7.66","title":"Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Insufficient","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d380e9\">The <b id=\"\">[1]</b> under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                 1.132</a></b> filed <b id=\"\">[2]</b> is insufficient to overcome the rejection\n                           of claim <b id=\"\">[3] </b>based upon<b id=\"\"> [4]</b> as set forth in the last Office action\n                           because: \n                        </p>","placeholders":[{"index":1,"position_in_text":4,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":2,"position_in_text":33,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":3,"position_in_text":88,"inferred_slot_type":null},{"index":4,"position_in_text":103,"inferred_slot_type":null}],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_4rsaa3j5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_4rsaa3j5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.01","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_01","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_01","form_paragraph_number":"7.66.01","title":"Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Affiant Has Never Seen Invention Before","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d381e9\">It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This\n                           is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. \n                           See <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92085\">MPEP § 716</a></b>.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_ueso4qfl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_ueso4qfl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.02","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_02","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_02","form_paragraph_number":"7.66.02","title":"Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Invention Works as Intended","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d382e9\">It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function.\n                           This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof.\n                           See <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92085\">MPEP § 716</a></b>.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_pdfadkps","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_pdfadkps","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.03","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_03","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_03","form_paragraph_number":"7.66.03","title":"Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Refers Only to Invention, Not to Claims","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d383e9\">It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application.\n                           As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims.\n                           See <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92085\">MPEP § 716</a></b>.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_mh4dvnqk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_mh4dvnqk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.04","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_04","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_04","form_paragraph_number":"7.66.04","title":"Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: No Evidence of Long-Felt Need","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d384e9\">It states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long\n                           standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art\n                           were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if\n                           persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of\n                           the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See\n                           <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93536\">MPEP §\n                                 716.04</a></b>.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"fp_uf42va3o","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/fp_uf42va3o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.05","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"form_paragraph","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_05","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!fp_7_66_05","form_paragraph_number":"7.66.05","title":"Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Conclusion","body_html":"<p id=\"fp-pt-d385e9\">In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness\n                           fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.\n                        </p>","placeholders":[],"appears_in_section_ids":["se_moosgfuu"]},{"id":"se_xcnhwfh5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_xcnhwfh5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92469","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01","section_number":"716.01","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Generally Applicable Criteria","children_ids":["pb_u77z3amc","ls_fijc6uxy","se_ibhf554x","se_k7jmgjd5","se_6ana7bny","se_777z3ko5"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_u77z3amc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_u77z3amc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92473\">The following criteria are applicable to all evidence traversing\n                           rejections submitted by applicants, including affidavits or declarations submitted under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                 1.132</a></b>:\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The following criteria are applicable to all evidence traversing rejections submitted by applicants, including affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.132:","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92473","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5"},{"id":"ls_fijc6uxy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_fijc6uxy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92480","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list","enumerator_style":"alpha_upper","nesting_depth":1,"parent_list_item_id":null,"host_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","item_ids":["li_kdrpui2a","li_qh6i73sk"]},{"id":"li_kdrpui2a","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_kdrpui2a","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(A) <i> Timeliness</i>.\n                              ","rendered_text_plain":"(A) Timeliness.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92480","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(A)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_fijc6uxy","child_ids":["ls_c4pqekrx"]},{"id":"ls_c4pqekrx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_c4pqekrx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f0d_2a2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list","enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":2,"parent_list_item_id":"li_kdrpui2a","host_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","item_ids":["li_bjn7vpv4","li_2fguzmrk"]},{"id":"li_bjn7vpv4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_bjn7vpv4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"  Evidence traversing rejections must be timely or seasonably\n                                    filed to be entered and entitled to consideration. <i>In re\n                                       Rothermel,</i> 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960). \n                                 ","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence traversing rejections must be timely or seasonably filed to be entered and entitled to consideration. In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f0d_2a2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_c4pqekrx","child_ids":null},{"id":"cs_swkigvao","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_swkigvao","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393 (CCPA 1960)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Rothermel","all_citations":["276 F.2d 393","125 USPQ 328"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1960,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960)"},{"id":"li_2fguzmrk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_2fguzmrk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":" Affidavits and declarations submitted under\n                                    <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                          1.132</a></b> and other evidence traversing rejections are\n                                    considered timely if submitted:\n                                    <p id=\"d0e92527\" style=\"margin-left: 12pt;\">For affidavits or declarations under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                             1.132</a></b> filed after appeal, see <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e356490\">37 CFR\n                                             41.33(d)</a></b> and <b><a href=\"s1206.html#d0e123772\">MPEP § 1206</a></b> and\n                                       <b><a href=\"s1211.html#d0e128327\">§\n                                             1211.03</a></b>.\n                                    </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted: For affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 filed after appeal, see 37 CFR 41.33(d) and MPEP § 1206 and § 1211.03.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_c4pqekrx","child_ids":["ls_rv4pwwtk"]},{"id":"ls_rv4pwwtk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_rv4pwwtk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92498","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list","enumerator_style":"arabic","nesting_depth":3,"parent_list_item_id":"li_2fguzmrk","host_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","item_ids":["li_ogsvvecf","li_lwje2wri","li_uuuzg6jy","li_k7r6udvw"]},{"id":"li_ogsvvecf","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_ogsvvecf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(1) prior to a final rejection, ","rendered_text_plain":"(1) prior to a final rejection,","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92498","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(1)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_rv4pwwtk","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_lwje2wri","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_lwje2wri","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(2) before appeal in an application not having a final\n                                          rejection, \n                                       ","rendered_text_plain":"(2) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection,","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92502","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(2)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_rv4pwwtk","child_ids":null},{"id":"li_uuuzg6jy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_uuuzg6jy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(3) after final rejection , but before or on the same date\n                                          of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why\n                                          the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier\n                                          presented in compliance with <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322826\">37 CFR 1.116(e)</a></b>;\n                                          or \n                                       ","rendered_text_plain":"(3) after final rejection , but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92507","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(3)","enumerator_ordinal":2,"parent_list_id":"ls_rv4pwwtk","child_ids":null},{"id":"st_asst5tgs","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_asst5tgs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.116","subsection_path":["e"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.116(e)"},{"id":"li_k7r6udvw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_k7r6udvw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(4) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final\n                                          rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the\n                                          affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination\n                                          (RCE) under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322625\">37 CFR 1.114</a></b> in a\n                                          utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a\n                                          continued prosecution application (CPA) under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e318681\">37 CFR\n                                                1.53(d)</a></b> in a design application.\n                                       ","rendered_text_plain":"(4) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92517","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(4)","enumerator_ordinal":3,"parent_list_id":"ls_rv4pwwtk","child_ids":null},{"id":"st_brdknkho","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_brdknkho","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.114","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.114"},{"id":"st_bmsdnayr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_bmsdnayr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.53","subsection_path":["d"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.53(d)"},{"id":"st_pq32va5i","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_pq32va5i","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"41.33","subsection_path":["d"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 41.33(d)"},{"id":"li_qh6i73sk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_qh6i73sk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"(B) <i>Consideration of evidence.</i>","rendered_text_plain":"(B) Consideration of evidence.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92543","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"(B)","enumerator_ordinal":1,"parent_list_id":"ls_fijc6uxy","child_ids":["ls_7gnkxwvq"]},{"id":"ls_7gnkxwvq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_7gnkxwvq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_it_29b9a_224ec_4","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list","enumerator_style":"no_enumerator","nesting_depth":2,"parent_list_item_id":"li_qh6i73sk","host_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","item_ids":["li_2imp3q7b"]},{"id":"li_2imp3q7b","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_2imp3q7b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":" Evidence traversing rejections, when timely presented, must\n                                    be considered by the examiner whenever present. All entered affidavits,\n                                    declarations, and other evidence traversing rejections are acknowledged and\n                                    commented upon by the examiner in the next succeeding action. The extent of\n                                    the commentary depends on the action taken by the examiner. Where an\n                                    examiner holds that the evidence is sufficient to overcome the\n                                    <i>prima facie</i> case, the comments should be consistent\n                                    with the guidelines for statements of reasons for allowance. See\n                                    <b><a href=\"s1302.html#d0e132661\">MPEP\n                                          § 1302.14</a></b>. Where the evidence is insufficient to\n                                    overcome the rejection, the examiner must specifically explain why the\n                                    evidence is insufficient. General statements such as “the declaration lacks\n                                    technical validity” or “the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of\n                                    the claims” without an explanation supporting such findings are\n                                    insufficient.\n                                 ","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence traversing rejections, when timely presented, must be considered by the examiner whenever present. All entered affidavits, declarations, and other evidence traversing rejections are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in the next succeeding action. The extent of the commentary depends on the action taken by the examiner. Where an examiner holds that the evidence is sufficient to overcome the prima facie case, the comments should be consistent with the guidelines for statements of reasons for allowance. See MPEP § 1302.14. Where the evidence is insufficient to overcome the rejection, the examiner must specifically explain why the evidence is insufficient. General statements such as “the declaration lacks technical validity” or “the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims” without an explanation supporting such findings are insufficient.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_it_29b9a_224ec_4","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"list_item","enumerator_label":"","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_7gnkxwvq","child_ids":null},{"id":"se_ibhf554x","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ibhf554x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92557","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_a","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_a","section_number":"716.01(a)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness","children_ids":["pb_ns57ujst","pb_4k672xcs","pb_24gsvfl3"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2017","parent_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5"},{"id":"pb_ns57ujst","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ns57ujst","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN TIMELY PRESENT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN TIMELY PRESENT","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92557/text.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_ibhf554x","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN TIMELY PRESENT"},{"id":"pb_4k672xcs","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4k672xcs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92574\">Affidavits or declarations, when timely presented, containing\n                              evidence of criticality or unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but\n                              unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc., must be considered\n                              by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness of claims for\n                              patentability under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C. 103</a></b>. The Court of\n                              Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in <i>Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip\n                                 Corp.,</i> 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that\n                              “evidence rising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’ must always when\n                              present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.” Such evidence\n                              might give light to circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter\n                              sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or unobviousness, such evidence\n                              may have relevancy. <i>Graham v. John Deere Co.,</i> 383 U.S. 1, 148\n                              USPQ 459 (1966); <i>In re Palmer,</i> 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126\n                              (CCPA 1971); <i>In re Fielder, </i>471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA\n                              1973). The <i>Graham v. John Deere</i> pronouncements on the relevance\n                              of commercial success, etc. to a determination of obviousness were not negated in\n                              <i>Sakraida v. Ag Pro,</i> 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976) or\n                              <i>Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,</i> 396 U.S.\n                              57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969), where reliance was placed upon <i>A&amp;P Tea Co.\n                                 v. Supermarket Corp.,</i> 340 U.S. 147, 87 USPQ 303 (1950). See\n                              <i>Dann v. Johnston,</i> 425 U.S. 219, 226 n.4, 189 USPQ 257, 261\n                              n. 4 (1976).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits or declarations, when timely presented, containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc., must be considered by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness of claims for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that “evidence rising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’ must always when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.” Such evidence might give light to circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or unobviousness, such evidence may have relevancy. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966); In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971); In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973). The Graham v. John Deere pronouncements on the relevance of commercial success, etc. to a determination of obviousness were not negated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976) or Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969), where reliance was placed upon A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 87 USPQ 303 (1950). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 226 n.4, 189 USPQ 257, 261 n. 4 (1976).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ibhf554x"},{"id":"cs_q4fikdzq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_q4fikdzq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.","all_citations":["713 F.2d 1530","218 USPQ 871"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"},{"id":"cs_mebii6tt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mebii6tt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (SCOTUS 1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Graham v. John Deere Co.","all_citations":["383 U.S. 1","148 USPQ 459"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1966,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (SCOTUS 1966)"},{"id":"cs_sfg3cia5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_sfg3cia5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Palmer","all_citations":["451 F.2d 1100","172 USPQ 126"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"cs_pwsgtfc2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pwsgtfc2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Fielder","all_citations":["471 F.2d 640","176 USPQ 300"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1973,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)"},{"id":"cs_tkh4hwy7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tkh4hwy7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273 (SCOTUS 1976)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Sakraida v. Ag Pro","all_citations":["425 U.S. 273","189 USPQ 449"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1976,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (SCOTUS 1976)"},{"id":"cs_5qute4ul","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5qute4ul","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (SCOTUS 1969)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.","all_citations":["396 U.S. 57","163 USPQ 673"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1969,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (SCOTUS 1969)"},{"id":"cs_vmvttieg","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vmvttieg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (SCOTUS 1950)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.","all_citations":["340 U.S. 147","87 USPQ 303"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1950,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 87 USPQ 303 (SCOTUS 1950)"},{"id":"cs_uxodantb","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_uxodantb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 (SCOTUS 1976)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Dann v. Johnston","all_citations":["425 U.S. 219","189 USPQ 257"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1976,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (SCOTUS 1976)"},{"id":"st_ompe7akv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ompe7akv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"103","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103"},{"id":"pb_24gsvfl3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_24gsvfl3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92611\">Examiners must consider comparative data in the specification\n                              which is intended to illustrate the claimed invention in reaching a conclusion\n                              with regard to the obviousness of the claims. <i>In re Margolis,</i>\n                              785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lack of objective evidence of\n                              nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness. <i>Miles Labs. Inc.\n                                 v. Shandon Inc.,</i> 997 F.2d 870, 878, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1129 (Fed. Cir.\n                              1993), <i>cert. denied,</i>127 L. Ed. 232 (1994). However, where a\n                              <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness is established, the failure\n                              to provide rebuttal evidence is dispositive.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Examiners must consider comparative data in the specification which is intended to illustrate the claimed invention in reaching a conclusion with regard to the obviousness of the claims. In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness. Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 878, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. denied,127 L. Ed. 232 (1994). However, where a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the failure to provide rebuttal evidence is dispositive.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92611","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ibhf554x"},{"id":"cs_njlf7bvk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_njlf7bvk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Margolis","all_citations":["785 F.2d 1029","228 USPQ 940"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1986,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986)"},{"id":"cs_g7forrpf","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_g7forrpf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc.","all_citations":["997 F.2d 870","27 USPQ2d 1123"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1993,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)"},{"id":"se_k7jmgjd5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_k7jmgjd5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92626","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_b","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_b","section_number":"716.01(b)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Nexus Requirement and Evidence of Nonobviousness","children_ids":["pb_2pu46t37","pb_e5idhjkd","pb_hir7ehr2","pb_4bbfzzyt","pb_77p57ylc","pb_kxhy3d4o"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5"},{"id":"pb_2pu46t37","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2pu46t37","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY SECONDARY EVIDENCE MUST BE RELATED TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION (NEXUS REQUIRED)</b>","rendered_text_plain":"TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY SECONDARY EVIDENCE MUST BE RELATED TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION (NEXUS REQUIRED)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92626/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY SECONDARY EVIDENCE MUST BE RELATED TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION (NEXUS REQUIRED)"},{"id":"pb_e5idhjkd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_e5idhjkd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92638\">The weight attached to evidence of secondary considerations by the\n                              examiner will depend upon its relevance to the issue of obviousness and the amount\n                              and nature of the evidence. Note the great reliance apparently placed on this type\n                              of evidence by the Supreme Court in upholding the patent in <i>United States\n                                 v. Adams,</i> 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The weight attached to evidence of secondary considerations by the examiner will depend upon its relevance to the issue of obviousness and the amount and nature of the evidence. Note the great reliance apparently placed on this type of evidence by the Supreme Court in upholding the patent in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92638","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5"},{"id":"cs_65r47k4h","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_65r47k4h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (SCOTUS 1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"United States v. Adams","all_citations":["383 U.S. 39","148 USPQ 479"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":1966,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (SCOTUS 1966)"},{"id":"pb_hir7ehr2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hir7ehr2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92644\">If the evidence is to be given substantial weight in the\n                              determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary\n                              considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and therefore\n                              the examiner must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the\n                              claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. <i>Ashland\n                                 Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &amp; Refractories, Inc.,</i> 776 F.2d 281, 305\n                              n.42, 227 USPQ 657, 673-674 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985), <i>cert.\n                                 denied,</i> 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). The term “nexus” designates a factually\n                              and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness\n                              and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the\n                              determination of nonobviousness. <i>Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff\n                                 Licensing Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.),\n                              <i>cert. denied,</i> 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also <i>Yita\n                                 LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC,</i> 69 F.4th 1356, 1363, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 2023).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"If the evidence is to be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and therefore the examiner must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 305 n.42, 227 USPQ 657, 673-674 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1363, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (Fed. Cir. 2023).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92644","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5"},{"id":"cs_2pzju7gn","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2pzju7gn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.","all_citations":["776 F.2d 281","227 USPQ 657"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_v6m5gbay","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_v6m5gbay","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.","all_citations":["851 F.2d 1387","7 USPQ2d 1222"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1988,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)"},{"id":"cs_uway6wrl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_uway6wrl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC","all_citations":["69 F.4th 1356","2023 USPQ2d 667"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2023,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (Fed. Cir. 2023)"},{"id":"pb_4bbfzzyt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4bbfzzyt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35cf2_18c87_258\">Applicant or patent owner bears the burden of\n                              establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the\n                              claimed invention. See <i>In re Huang</i>, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ\n                              1685, 1689  (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner\n                              shows that the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product\n                              and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them. See\n                              <i>Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,</i> 944 F.3d 1366, 1373, 2019\n                              USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 373 (2020). “[T]he purpose\n                              of the coextensiveness requirement is to ensure that nexus is only presumed when\n                              the product tied to the evidence of secondary considerations 'is the invention\n                              disclosed and claimed.’” <i>Id.</i> at 1374 (quoting <i>Demaco\n                                 Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d 1387, 1392, 7\n                              USPQ2d 1222, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “[T]he degree of correspondence between a\n                              product and the patent claim falls along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum\n                              lies perfect or near perfect correspondence. At the other end lies no or very\n                              little correspondence.“ <i>Id.</i> “A patent claim is not coextensive\n                              with a product that includes a 'critical' unclaimed feature that is claimed by a\n                              different patent and that materially impacts the product's functionality.”\n                              <i>Id.</i> at 1375. \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Applicant or patent owner bears the burden of establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner shows that the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 373 (2020). “[T]he purpose of the coextensiveness requirement is to ensure that nexus is only presumed when the product tied to the evidence of secondary considerations 'is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Id. at 1374 (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392, 7 USPQ2d 1222, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “[T]he degree of correspondence between a product and the patent claim falls along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum lies perfect or near perfect correspondence. At the other end lies no or very little correspondence.“ Id. “A patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a 'critical' unclaimed feature that is claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the product's functionality.” Id. at 1375.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c87_258","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5"},{"id":"cs_hzsfutue","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_hzsfutue","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Huang","all_citations":["100 F.3d 135","40 USPQ 1685"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1996,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)"},{"id":"cs_jhecabc5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_jhecabc5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC","all_citations":["944 F.3d 1366","2019 USPQ2d 483355"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2019,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019)"},{"id":"pb_77p57ylc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_77p57ylc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7\">Even if there is no presumption of nexus, the\n                              consideration of the rebuttal evidence does not end. “To the contrary, the patent\n                              owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence\n                              of secondary considerations is the 'direct result of the unique characteristics of\n                              the claimed invention.’” <i>Id.</i> at 1373-74 (quoting <i>In re\n                                 Huang,</i> 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). See\n                              also <i>Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp.,</i> 81\n                              F.4th 1202, 1211, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (A nexus, independent of the\n                              presumption, was demonstrated between the claims and objective indicia of\n                              nonobviousness through evidence of commercial success and copying due to the\n                              unique features of the claimed invention). “Where the offered secondary\n                              consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and\n                              novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention,“\n                              meaning that \"there must be a nexus to some aspect of the claim not already in the\n                              prior art.” <i>In re Kao,</i> 639 F.3d 1057, 1068-69, 98 USPQ2d 1799,\n                              1808 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). On the other hand, there is no\n                              requirement that “objective evidence must be tied exclusively to claim elements\n                              that are not disclosed in a particular prior art reference in order for that\n                              evidence to carry substantial weight.” <i>WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,</i>\n                              829 F.3d 1317, 1331, 119 USPQ2d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A patent owner may\n                              show, for example, “that it is the claimed combination as a whole that serves as a\n                              nexus for the objective evidence; proof of nexus is not limited to only when\n                              objective evidence is tied to the supposedly 'new’ feature(s).” 639 F.3d at 1330.\n                              Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the secondary considerations evidence\n                              presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have\n                              been obvious to a skilled artisan. 639 F.3d at 1331-32. <i>Fox Factory, Inc.\n                                 v. SRAM, LLC,</i> 813 Fed. Appx. 539, 542-43, 2020 USPQ2d 10546 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 2020) (the record has substantial evidence to support nexus and\n                              nonobviousness based on secondary considerations regarding industry skepticism and\n                              subsequent praise and long-felt need because it was shown that the underlying\n                              product’s success was attributed to the allegedly obvious claim feature).\n                              <i>Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,</i> 10 F.4th 1268, 1279,\n                              2021 USPQ2d 875 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he\n                              obviousness analysis involves determining whether 'the claimed invention as a\n                              whole would have been obvious[]’ (quoting <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_19797_b0\">35 U.S.C.\n                                    103</a></b>)[], and yet we still require a link to the claimed\n                              invention's unique characteristics in that context. We therefore hold that, as in\n                              the utility patent context, objective indicia must be linked to a design patent\n                              claim's unique characteristics.”). See also <i>Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v.\n                                 Eli Lilly &amp; Co.,</i> 8 F.4th 1349, 2021 USPQ2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 2021). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Even if there is no presumption of nexus, the consideration of the rebuttal evidence does not end. “To the contrary, the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the 'direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373-74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). See also Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 1211, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (A nexus, independent of the presumption, was demonstrated between the claims and objective indicia of nonobviousness through evidence of commercial success and copying due to the unique features of the claimed invention). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention,“ meaning that \"there must be a nexus to some aspect of the claim not already in the prior art.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068-69, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1808 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). On the other hand, there is no requirement that “objective evidence must be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in a particular prior art reference in order for that evidence to carry substantial weight.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331, 119 USPQ2d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A patent owner may show, for example, “that it is the claimed combination as a whole that serves as a nexus for the objective evidence; proof of nexus is not limited to only when objective evidence is tied to the supposedly 'new’ feature(s).” 639 F.3d at 1330. Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the secondary considerations evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. 639 F.3d at 1331-32. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 813 Fed. Appx. 539, 542-43, 2020 USPQ2d 10546 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the record has substantial evidence to support nexus and nonobviousness based on secondary considerations regarding industry skepticism and subsequent praise and long-felt need because it was shown that the underlying product’s success was attributed to the allegedly obvious claim feature). Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 1279, 2021 USPQ2d 875 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he obviousness analysis involves determining whether 'the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious[]’ (quoting 35 U.S.C. 103)[], and yet we still require a link to the claimed invention's unique characteristics in that context. We therefore hold that, as in the utility patent context, objective indicia must be linked to a design patent claim's unique characteristics.”). See also Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 2021 USPQ2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 2021).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5"},{"id":"cs_nwsngfnc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nwsngfnc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Huang","all_citations":["100 F.3d 135","40 USPQ2d 1685"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1996,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)"},{"id":"cs_t6sarnoj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_t6sarnoj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp.","all_citations":["81 F.4th 1202","2023 USPQ2d 1000"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2023,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023)"},{"id":"cs_w5a4mgyw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_w5a4mgyw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Kao","all_citations":["639 F.3d 1057","98 USPQ2d 1799"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2011,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011)"},{"id":"cs_tcocrd42","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tcocrd42","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.","all_citations":["829 F.3d 1317","119 USPQ2d 1301"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2016,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 119 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016)"},{"id":"cs_3f3vwjdd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3f3vwjdd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 813 Fed. Appx. 539 (Fed. Cir. 2020)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC","all_citations":["813 Fed. Appx. 539","2020 USPQ2d 10546"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2020,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 813 Fed. Appx. 539, 2020 USPQ2d 10546 (Fed. Cir. 2020)"},{"id":"cs_ziyvsiyv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ziyvsiyv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.","all_citations":["10 F.4th 1268","2021 USPQ2d 875"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2021,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 2021 USPQ2d 875 (Fed. Cir. 2021)"},{"id":"cs_emuxz7ho","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_emuxz7ho","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co.","all_citations":["8 F.4th 1349","2021 USPQ2d 866"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2021,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 2021 USPQ2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 2021)"},{"id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kxhy3d4o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db\">“Where the offered secondary consideration actually\n                              results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim,\n                              there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.“ <i>In re\n                                 Kao</i>, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also <i>Tokai\n                                 Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.</i>, 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011)\n                              (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”);\n                              <i>Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.</i>, 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (2006)\n                              (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art,\n                              the success is not pertinent.”). In evaluating whether the requisite nexus exists,\n                              the identified objective indicia must be directed to what was not known in the\n                              prior art, including patents and publications, which may well be the novel\n                              combination or arrangement of known individual elements. See <i>KSR Int’l\n                                 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</i>, 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007); <i>Veritas\n                                 Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.</i>, 835 F.3d 1406, 1414-15 (Fed. Cir.\n                              2016). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.“ In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”). In evaluating whether the requisite nexus exists, the identified objective indicia must be directed to what was not known in the prior art, including patents and publications, which may well be the novel combination or arrangement of known individual elements. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007); Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406, 1414-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_k7jmgjd5"},{"id":"cs_od4ngaid","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_od4ngaid","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Kao","all_citations":["639 F.3d 1057"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2011,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)"},{"id":"cs_5besighe","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5besighe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.","all_citations":["632 F.3d 1358"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2011,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)"},{"id":"cs_ngjc63gw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ngjc63gw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.","all_citations":["463 F.3d 1299"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2006,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)"},{"id":"cs_pajbqpus","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pajbqpus","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (SCOTUS 2007)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.","all_citations":["550 U.S. 398"],"court":"SCOTUS","decision_year":2007,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (SCOTUS 2007)"},{"id":"cs_23uomlcx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_23uomlcx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.","all_citations":["835 F.3d 1406"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2016,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016)"},{"id":"se_6ana7bny","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_6ana7bny","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92659","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_c","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_c","section_number":"716.01(c)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Probative Value of Objective Evidence","children_ids":["pb_w6azpjgi","pb_hesgmmgl","pb_66lg6wt7","pb_lhatsjh6","pb_xwikjdo5","pb_6gmoxxah","pb_b4y3mxpt","pb_omr5owc7","pb_4osnlxlu","pb_7ek5gotv","pb_wk6yd5uu","pb_tpj7wp6n"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5"},{"id":"pb_w6azpjgi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_w6azpjgi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PROOF</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PROOF","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92659/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PROOF"},{"id":"pb_hesgmmgl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hesgmmgl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92674\">Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an\n                              appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of\n                              unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need,\n                              inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and\n                              allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject\n                              matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example,\n                              <i>In re De Blauwe,</i> 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by\n                              factual evidence.” “[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing\n                              that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing\n                              appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we\n                              conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere\n                              argument.”). See also <i>In re Lindner,</i> 457 F.2d 506, 508,\n                              173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); <i>Ex parte George,</i> 21 USPQ2d 1058\n                              (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1991).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence.” “[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument.”). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92674","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_cnxbx676","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cnxbx676","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re De Blauwe","all_citations":["736 F.2d 699","222 USPQ 191"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"cs_l2b7tnna","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_l2b7tnna","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506 (CCPA 1972)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Lindner","all_citations":["457 F.2d 506","173 USPQ 356"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1972,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972)"},{"id":"cs_cvddyhgc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cvddyhgc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (BPAI 1991)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte George","all_citations":["21 USPQ2d 1058"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1991,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (BPAI 1991)"},{"id":"pb_66lg6wt7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_66lg6wt7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. ARGUMENTS BY APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. ARGUMENTS BY APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92659/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. ARGUMENTS BY APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE"},{"id":"pb_lhatsjh6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lhatsjh6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92693\">Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of\n                              evidence in the record. <i>In re Schulze,</i> 346 F.2d 600, 602,\n                              145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and <i>In re De Blauwe,</i> 736 F.2d\n                              699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not\n                              evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration\n                              include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a\n                              long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the\n                              reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the\n                              disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92693","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_xqzhovub","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xqzhovub","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600 (CCPA 1965)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Schulze","all_citations":["346 F.2d 600","145 USPQ 716"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1965,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965)"},{"id":"pb_xwikjdo5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xwikjdo5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92699\">See <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">MPEP § 2145</a></b> generally for case law pertinent to the\n                              consideration of applicant’s rebuttal arguments. \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 2145 generally for case law pertinent to the consideration of applicant’s rebuttal arguments.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92699","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"pb_6gmoxxah","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6gmoxxah","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. OPINION EVIDENCE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. OPINION EVIDENCE","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92659/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. OPINION EVIDENCE"},{"id":"pb_b4y3mxpt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_b4y3mxpt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92712\">Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such\n                              testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is\n                              not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal\n                              conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may\n                              be persuasive. <i>In re Chilowsky,</i> 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515\n                              (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824\">35 U.S.C.\n                                    112</a></b> is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting\n                              a basis for deciding that the specification complies with <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824\">35 U.S.C.\n                                    112</a></b> are entitled to some weight); <i>In re\n                                 Lindell,</i> 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an\n                              affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in\n                              the case, “some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of\n                              one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him.” 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ\n                              at 524 (emphasis in original)). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, “some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him.” 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92712","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_5tlu77vh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5tlu77vh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908 (CCPA 1962)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Chilowsky","all_citations":["306 F.2d 908","134 USPQ 515"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1962,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962)"},{"id":"cs_sd65k7yi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_sd65k7yi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Lindell","all_citations":["385 F.2d 453","155 USPQ 521"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1967,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967)"},{"id":"st_35hzro2v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_35hzro2v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"112","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112"},{"id":"pb_omr5owc7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_omr5owc7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92727\">In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the\n                              examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the\n                              strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of\n                              the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion.\n                              <i>Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &amp; Refractories, Inc.,</i>\n                              776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), <i>cert. denied,</i> 475\n                              U.S. 1017 (1986). See also <i>In re Oelrich,</i> 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ\n                              210 (CCPA 1978) (factually based expert opinions on the level of ordinary skill in\n                              the art were sufficient to rebut the <i>prima facie</i> case of\n                              obviousness); <i>Ex parte Gray,</i> 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App.\n                              &amp; Inter. 1989) (statement in publication dismissing the “preliminary\n                              identification of a human b-NGF-like molecule” in the prior art, even if\n                              considered to be an expert opinion, was inadequate to overcome the rejection based\n                              on that prior art because there was no factual evidence supporting the statement);\n                              <i>In re Carroll,</i> 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979)\n                              (expert opinion on what the prior art taught, supported by documentary evidence\n                              and formulated prior to the making of the claimed invention, received considerable\n                              deference); <i>In re Beattie,</i> 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 1992) (declarations of seven persons skilled in the art offering opinion\n                              evidence praising the merits of the claimed invention were found to have little\n                              value because of a lack of factual support); <i>Ex parte George</i>,\n                              21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1991) (conclusory statements that\n                              results were “unexpected,” unsupported by objective factual evidence, were\n                              considered but were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). See also In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1978) (factually based expert opinions on the level of ordinary skill in the art were sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness); Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (statement in publication dismissing the “preliminary identification of a human b-NGF-like molecule” in the prior art, even if considered to be an expert opinion, was inadequate to overcome the rejection based on that prior art because there was no factual evidence supporting the statement); In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979) (expert opinion on what the prior art taught, supported by documentary evidence and formulated prior to the making of the claimed invention, received considerable deference); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (declarations of seven persons skilled in the art offering opinion evidence praising the merits of the claimed invention were found to have little value because of a lack of factual support); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (conclusory statements that results were “unexpected,” unsupported by objective factual evidence, were considered but were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_n6rmsq6e","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_n6rmsq6e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86 (CCPA 1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Oelrich","all_citations":["579 F.2d 86","198 USPQ 210"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1978,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1978)"},{"id":"cs_nlahuooq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_nlahuooq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Gray","all_citations":["10 USPQ2d 1922"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1989,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989)"},{"id":"cs_pzxkczmk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pzxkczmk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Carroll","all_citations":["601 F.2d 1184","202 USPQ 571"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1979,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979)"},{"id":"cs_wp77iofo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_wp77iofo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Beattie","all_citations":["974 F.2d 1309","24 USPQ2d 1040"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1992,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992)"},{"id":"pb_4osnlxlu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4osnlxlu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92754\">Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions\n                              may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little\n                              weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application.\n                              <i>In re Brandstadter,</i> 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA\n                              1973).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92754","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_jb35ept7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_jb35ept7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Brandstadter","all_citations":["484 F.2d 1395","179 USPQ 286"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1973,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973)"},{"id":"pb_7ek5gotv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7ek5gotv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92760\">An affidavit of an applicant as to the advantages of their claimed\n                              invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be\n                              disregarded for this reason alone. <i>Ex parte Keyes,</i> 214 USPQ 579\n                              (Bd. App. 1982); <i>In re McKenna,</i> 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA\n                              1953). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An affidavit of an applicant as to the advantages of their claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for this reason alone. Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (Bd. App. 1982); In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92760","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_l7tehmc5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_l7tehmc5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (BPAI 1982)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Keyes","all_citations":["214 USPQ 579"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1982,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (BPAI 1982)"},{"id":"cs_gkvrzlan","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gkvrzlan","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717 (CCPA 1953)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re McKenna","all_citations":["203 F.2d 717","97 USPQ 348"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1953,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953)"},{"id":"pb_wk6yd5uu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wk6yd5uu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>IV. PROBATIVE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OR LONG FELT NEED EVIDENCE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"IV. PROBATIVE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OR LONG FELT NEED EVIDENCE","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92659/b.3","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IV. PROBATIVE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OR LONG FELT NEED EVIDENCE"},{"id":"pb_tpj7wp6n","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tpj7wp6n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_2e698_20b33_fd\">Objective evidence of commercial success or long\n                              felt need and failure of others may be given less weight if the record shows that\n                              the applicant or patent owner has a strong market power or blocking patent\n                              depending on the facts of record. “A patent has been called a 'blocking patent’\n                              where practice of a later invention would infringe the earlier patent. The\n                              existence of such a blocking patent may deter non-owners and non-licensees from\n                              investing the resources needed to make, develop, and market such a later,\n                              'blocked' invention, because of the risk of infringement liability and associated\n                              monetary or injunctive remedies. If the later invention is eventually patented by\n                              an owner or licensee of the blocking patent, that potential deterrent effect is\n                              relevant to understanding why others had not made, developed, or marketed that\n                              'blocked' invention and, hence, to evaluating objective indicia of the obviousness\n                              of the later patent.” <i>Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab.,\n                                 Inc.,</i> 903 F.3d 1310, 1337, 128 USPQ2d 1001, 1021(Fed. Cir. 2018).\n                              “Such a blocking patent therefore can be evidence that can discount the\n                              significance of evidence that nobody but the blocking patent’s owners or licensees\n                              arrived at, developed, and marketed the invention covered by the later patent at\n                              issue in litigation. But the magnitude of the diminution in incentive in any\n                              context—in particular, whether it was great enough to have actually deterred\n                              activity that otherwise would have occurred—is 'a fact-specific inquiry.'”\n                              <i>Id.</i> at 1339, 128 USPQ2d at 1022. While having record\n                              evidence of such a blocking patent may not be common, examiners should be aware of\n                              its potential impact in evaluating secondary evidence of nonobviousness. In any\n                              Office action, examiners should articulate why there is any discounting of the\n                              weight of the secondary consideration evidence when addressing the evidence.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Objective evidence of commercial success or long felt need and failure of others may be given less weight if the record shows that the applicant or patent owner has a strong market power or blocking patent depending on the facts of record. “A patent has been called a 'blocking patent’ where practice of a later invention would infringe the earlier patent. The existence of such a blocking patent may deter non-owners and non-licensees from investing the resources needed to make, develop, and market such a later, 'blocked' invention, because of the risk of infringement liability and associated monetary or injunctive remedies. If the later invention is eventually patented by an owner or licensee of the blocking patent, that potential deterrent effect is relevant to understanding why others had not made, developed, or marketed that 'blocked' invention and, hence, to evaluating objective indicia of the obviousness of the later patent.” Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1337, 128 USPQ2d 1001, 1021(Fed. Cir. 2018). “Such a blocking patent therefore can be evidence that can discount the significance of evidence that nobody but the blocking patent’s owners or licensees arrived at, developed, and marketed the invention covered by the later patent at issue in litigation. But the magnitude of the diminution in incentive in any context—in particular, whether it was great enough to have actually deterred activity that otherwise would have occurred—is 'a fact-specific inquiry.'” Id. at 1339, 128 USPQ2d at 1022. While having record evidence of such a blocking patent may not be common, examiners should be aware of its potential impact in evaluating secondary evidence of nonobviousness. In any Office action, examiners should articulate why there is any discounting of the weight of the secondary consideration evidence when addressing the evidence.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2e698_20b33_fd","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_6ana7bny"},{"id":"cs_5tpdt5t6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5tpdt5t6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc.","all_citations":["903 F.3d 1310","128 USPQ2d 1001"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2018,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 128 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2018)"},{"id":"se_777z3ko5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_777z3ko5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92769","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_d","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_01_d","section_number":"716.01(d)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Weighing Objective Evidence","children_ids":["pb_3bozvkgm","pb_hzdyojwr","pb_n7llghh2"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_xcnhwfh5"},{"id":"pb_3bozvkgm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3bozvkgm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>IN MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF PATENTABILITY, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PATENTABILITY MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PRIMA FACIE CASE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"IN MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF PATENTABILITY, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PATENTABILITY MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PRIMA FACIE CASE","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92769/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_777z3ko5","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IN MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF PATENTABILITY, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PATENTABILITY MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PRIMA FACIE CASE"},{"id":"pb_hzdyojwr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hzdyojwr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92780\">When an applicant timely submits evidence traversing a rejection,\n                              the examiner must reconsider the patentability of the claimed invention. The\n                              ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the\n                              entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the\n                              persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence. <i>In re\n                                 Oetiker,</i> 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The\n                              submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of\n                              patentability in and of itself. <i>In re Chupp</i>, 816 F.2d 643,\n                              2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Facts established by rebuttal evidence must be\n                              evaluated along with the facts on which the conclusion of a <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> case was reached, not against the conclusion itself.\n                              <i>In re Eli Lilly,</i> 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir.\n                              1990). In other words, each piece of rebuttal evidence should not be evaluated for\n                              its ability to knockdown the <i>prima facie</i> case. All of the\n                              competent rebuttal evidence taken as a whole should be weighed against the\n                              evidence supporting the <i>prima facie</i> case. <i>In re\n                                 Piasecki,</i> 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n                              Although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are\n                              indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of\n                              obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to\n                              outweigh the evidence of obviousness. <i>Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg.\n                                 Co.,</i> 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988),\n                              <i>cert. denied,</i> 493 U.S. 814 (1989);\n                              <i>Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co.,</i> 122 F.3d 1476,\n                              1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (showing of unexpected results and\n                              commercial success of claimed ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine combination in single\n                              tablet form, while supported by substantial evidence, held not to overcome strong\n                              <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness). See <i>In re\n                                 Piasecki,</i> 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) for a detailed\n                              discussion of the proper roles of the examiner’s <i>prima facie</i>\n                              case and applicant’s rebuttal evidence in the final determination of\n                              obviousness.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When an applicant timely submits evidence traversing a rejection, the examiner must reconsider the patentability of the claimed invention. The ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability in and of itself. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Facts established by rebuttal evidence must be evaluated along with the facts on which the conclusion of a prima facie case was reached, not against the conclusion itself. In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, each piece of rebuttal evidence should not be evaluated for its ability to knockdown the prima facie case. All of the competent rebuttal evidence taken as a whole should be weighed against the evidence supporting the prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (showing of unexpected results and commercial success of claimed ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine combination in single tablet form, while supported by substantial evidence, held not to overcome strong prima facie case of obviousness). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) for a detailed discussion of the proper roles of the examiner’s prima facie case and applicant’s rebuttal evidence in the final determination of obviousness.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_777z3ko5"},{"id":"cs_mvrv2wl5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mvrv2wl5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Oetiker","all_citations":["977 F.2d 1443","24 USPQ2d 1443"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1992,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)"},{"id":"cs_e7tbx4k4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_e7tbx4k4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Chupp","all_citations":["816 F.2d 643","2 USPQ2d 1437"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1987,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987)"},{"id":"cs_a6b57hmc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_a6b57hmc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Eli Lilly","all_citations":["902 F.2d 943","14 USPQ2d 1741"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1990,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)"},{"id":"cs_4opqd42k","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4opqd42k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Piasecki","all_citations":["745 F.2d 1468","223 USPQ 785"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"cs_rwxjx62w","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rwxjx62w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.","all_citations":["864 F.2d 757","9 USPQ2d 1417"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1988,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988)"},{"id":"cs_llnvoaaj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_llnvoaaj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co.","all_citations":["122 F.3d 1476","44 USPQ2d 1181"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1997,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997)"},{"id":"pb_n7llghh2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_n7llghh2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92822\">If, after evaluating the evidence, the examiner is still not\n                              convinced that the claimed invention is patentable, the next Office action should\n                              include a statement to that effect and identify the reason(s) (e.g., evidence of\n                              commercial success not convincing, the commercial success not related to the\n                              technology, etc.). See <i>Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing\n                                 Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), <i>cert.\n                                 denied,</i> 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92469\">MPEP § 716.01</a></b>.\n                              Any conclusion of whether the evidence of obviousness outweighs the objective\n                              evidence, along with any individual weights assigned to different objective\n                              indicia, should be explained. <i>Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v.\n                                 Brunswick Corp.,</i> 81 F.4th 1202, 1215, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir.\n                              2023) (The court found the assignment of weight to different considerations was\n                              overly vague and ambiguous because, despite evidence of copying, commercial\n                              success, and industry praise, the Board assigned all of these factors only “some\n                              weight,” “did not explain why it gave these three factors the same weight, or even\n                              whether or not that constituted precisely the same weight,” and regarding the\n                              weight of all six factors “[did] not discuss the summation of the factors at all\n                              other than to say, without explanation, that they collectively ‘weigh[] somewhat\n                              in favor of nonobviousness’”). See <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">MPEP § 2145</a></b> for guidance in\n                              determining whether rebuttal evidence is sufficient to overcome a <i>prima\n                                 facie </i>case of obviousness.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"If, after evaluating the evidence, the examiner is still not convinced that the claimed invention is patentable, the next Office action should include a statement to that effect and identify the reason(s) (e.g., evidence of commercial success not convincing, the commercial success not related to the technology, etc.). See Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also MPEP § 716.01. Any conclusion of whether the evidence of obviousness outweighs the objective evidence, along with any individual weights assigned to different objective indicia, should be explained. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 1215, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the assignment of weight to different considerations was overly vague and ambiguous because, despite evidence of copying, commercial success, and industry praise, the Board assigned all of these factors only “some weight,” “did not explain why it gave these three factors the same weight, or even whether or not that constituted precisely the same weight,” and regarding the weight of all six factors “[did] not discuss the summation of the factors at all other than to say, without explanation, that they collectively ‘weigh[] somewhat in favor of nonobviousness’”). See MPEP § 2145 for guidance in determining whether rebuttal evidence is sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92822","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_777z3ko5"},{"id":"se_bl65w3ts","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_bl65w3ts","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92844","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02","section_number":"716.02","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Allegations of Unexpected Results","children_ids":["pb_yquk6p6d","se_fssf2ze6","se_tlhpwm2e","se_ce4ck6iy","se_sblaebq5","se_45pl5i2q","se_5my4sjzu","se_2z62ogco"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_yquk6p6d","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_yquk6p6d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92848\">Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be\n                           expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the\n                           properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected.\n                           <i>In re Merck &amp; Co.,</i> 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir.\n                           1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed\n                           antidepressants were not unexpected). In <i>In re Waymouth,</i> 499 F.2d\n                           1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a\n                           claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a\n                           demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as\n                           to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” Compare\n                           <i>In re Wagner,</i> 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967)\n                           (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in\n                           degree rather than in kind); <i>Ex parte Gelles,</i> 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319\n                           (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (“we generally consider a discussion of results in\n                           terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very\n                           little meaning in a relevant legal sense”). See also <i>UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs,\n                              UT, Inc.,</i> 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A\n                           difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range\n                           produces ‘“a new property dissimilar to the known property,’” rather than producing a\n                           predictable result but to an unexpected extent.”).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed antidepressants were not unexpected). In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (“we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense”). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘“a new property dissimilar to the known property,’” rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"cs_xijfw2yp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xijfw2yp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Merck & Co.","all_citations":["800 F.2d 1091","231 USPQ 375"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1986,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)"},{"id":"cs_pxrn2ayt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pxrn2ayt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273 (CCPA 1974)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Waymouth","all_citations":["499 F.2d 1273","182 USPQ 290"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1974,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 182 USPQ 290 (CCPA 1974)"},{"id":"cs_kfcmromi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_kfcmromi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Wagner","all_citations":["371 F.2d 877","152 USPQ 552"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1967,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 152 USPQ 552 (CCPA 1967)"},{"id":"cs_oldfxfzn","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_oldfxfzn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Gelles","all_citations":["22 USPQ2d 1318"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1992,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992)"},{"id":"cs_yzrdqgzv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_yzrdqgzv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc.","all_citations":["65 F.4th 679","2023 USPQ2d 448"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2023,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)"},{"id":"se_fssf2ze6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_fssf2ze6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92863","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_a","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_a","section_number":"716.02(a)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Evidence Must Show Unexpected Results","children_ids":["pb_gimgpdts","pb_2pkkvclc","pb_i4xvo7nr","pb_hor2vxwl","pb_gr3zwp6e","pb_tojg4r7n","pb_3gwf327k","pb_yq6glmxx"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_gimgpdts","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gimgpdts","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92863/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_2pkkvclc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2pkkvclc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92878\">“A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent\n                              to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” <i>In re\n                                 Corkill,</i> 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In\n                              <i>Corkhill</i>, the claimed combination showed an additive result\n                              when a diminished result would have been expected. This result was persuasive of\n                              nonobviousness even though the result was equal to that of one component alone.\n                              Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an\n                              effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately\n                              (i.e., demonstrating “synergism”). <i>Merck &amp; Co. Inc. v. Biocraft\n                                 Laboratories Inc.,</i> 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.),\n                              <i>cert. denied,</i> 493 U.S. 975 (1989). However, a greater than\n                              additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> case of obviousness because such an effect can either be\n                              expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater\n                              than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious\n                              extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.\n                              <i>Ex parte The NutraSweet Co.,</i> 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App.\n                              &amp; Inter. 1991) (Evidence showing greater than additive sweetness resulting\n                              from the claimed mixture of saccharin and L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine was not\n                              sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of the\n                              prior art lead to a general expectation of greater than additive sweetening\n                              effects when using mixtures of synthetic sweeteners.). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Corkhill, the claimed combination showed an additive result when a diminished result would have been expected. This result was persuasive of nonobviousness even though the result was equal to that of one component alone. Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately (i.e., demonstrating “synergism”). Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (Evidence showing greater than additive sweetness resulting from the claimed mixture of saccharin and L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of the prior art lead to a general expectation of greater than additive sweetening effects when using mixtures of synthetic sweeteners.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92878","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6"},{"id":"cs_h2upjupc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_h2upjupc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Corkill","all_citations":["771 F.2d 1496","226 USPQ 1005"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_t2rcekex","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_t2rcekex","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc.","all_citations":["874 F.2d 804","10 USPQ2d 1843"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1989,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)"},{"id":"cs_b2dzdyv6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_b2dzdyv6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (BPAI 1991)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co.","all_citations":["19 USPQ2d 1586"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1991,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (BPAI 1991)"},{"id":"pb_i4xvo7nr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_i4xvo7nr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. SUPERIORITY OF A PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. SUPERIORITY OF A PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92863/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. SUPERIORITY OF A PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_hor2vxwl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hor2vxwl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92906\">Evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties, such\n                              as superiority in a property the claimed compound shares with the prior art, can\n                              rebut <i>prima facie</i> obviousness. “Evidence that a compound is\n                              unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be\n                              enough to rebut a <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness.” No set\n                              number of examples of superiority is required. <i>In re Chupp</i>, 816\n                              F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Evidence showing that the\n                              claimed herbicidal compound was more effective than the closest prior art compound\n                              in controlling quackgrass and yellow nutsedge weeds in corn and soybean crops was\n                              sufficient to overcome the rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C. 103</a></b>, even though the\n                              specification indicated the claimed compound was an average performer on crops\n                              other than corn and soybean.). See also <i>Ex parte A,</i> 17 USPQ2d\n                              1716 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1990) (unexpected superior therapeutic activity\n                              of claimed compound against anaerobic bacteria was sufficient to rebut\n                              <i>prima facie</i> obviousness even though there was no evidence\n                              that the compound was effective against all bacteria).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties, such as superiority in a property the claimed compound shares with the prior art, can rebut prima facie obviousness. “Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” No set number of examples of superiority is required. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound was more effective than the closest prior art compound in controlling quackgrass and yellow nutsedge weeds in corn and soybean crops was sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, even though the specification indicated the claimed compound was an average performer on crops other than corn and soybean.). See also Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (unexpected superior therapeutic activity of claimed compound against anaerobic bacteria was sufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness even though there was no evidence that the compound was effective against all bacteria).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92906","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6"},{"id":"cs_xtgzvqii","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xtgzvqii","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (BPAI 1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte A","all_citations":["17 USPQ2d 1716"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1990,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (BPAI 1990)"},{"id":"pb_gr3zwp6e","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gr3zwp6e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. PRESENCE OF AN UNEXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. PRESENCE OF AN UNEXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92863/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. PRESENCE OF AN UNEXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_tojg4r7n","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tojg4r7n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92934\">Presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence\n                              of nonobviousness. <i>In re Papesch,</i> 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43\n                              (CCPA 1963) (rejection of claims to compound structurally similar to the prior art\n                              compound was reversed because claimed compound unexpectedly possessed\n                              anti-inflammatory properties not possessed by the prior art compound); <i>Ex\n                                 parte Thumm,</i> 132 USPQ 66 (Bd. App. 1961) (Appellant showed that the\n                              claimed range of ethylene diamine was effective for the purpose of producing\n                              “‘regenerated cellulose consisting substantially entirely of skin’” whereas the\n                              prior art warned “this compound has ‘practically no effect.’ ”). The submission of\n                              evidence that a new product possesses unexpected properties does not necessarily\n                              require a conclusion that the claimed invention is nonobvious. <i>In re\n                                 Payne,</i> 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979). See the discussion of\n                              latent properties and additional advantages in <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">MPEP §\n                                    2145</a></b>.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence of nonobviousness. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (rejection of claims to compound structurally similar to the prior art compound was reversed because claimed compound unexpectedly possessed anti-inflammatory properties not possessed by the prior art compound); Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (Bd. App. 1961) (Appellant showed that the claimed range of ethylene diamine was effective for the purpose of producing “‘regenerated cellulose consisting substantially entirely of skin’” whereas the prior art warned “this compound has ‘practically no effect.’ ”). The submission of evidence that a new product possesses unexpected properties does not necessarily require a conclusion that the claimed invention is nonobvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979). See the discussion of latent properties and additional advantages in MPEP § 2145.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92934","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6"},{"id":"cs_x7n237wg","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_x7n237wg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381 (CCPA 1963)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Papesch","all_citations":["315 F.2d 381","137 USPQ 43"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1963,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)"},{"id":"cs_jdpwti3q","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_jdpwti3q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (BPAI 1961)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Thumm","all_citations":["132 USPQ 66"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1961,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (BPAI 1961)"},{"id":"cs_o7p3hldo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_o7p3hldo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Payne","all_citations":["606 F.2d 303","203 USPQ 245"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1979,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)"},{"id":"pb_3gwf327k","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3gwf327k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>IV. ABSENCE OF AN EXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"IV. ABSENCE OF AN EXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92863/b.3","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IV. ABSENCE OF AN EXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_yq6glmxx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_yq6glmxx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92956\">Absence of property which a claimed invention would have been\n                              expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art is evidence of\n                              unobviousness. <i>Ex parte Mead Johnson &amp; Co.,</i> 227 USPQ 78\n                              (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1985) (Based on prior art disclosures, claimed\n                              compounds would have been expected to possess beta-andrenergic blocking activity;\n                              the fact that claimed compounds did not possess such activity was an unexpected\n                              result sufficient to establish unobviousness within the meaning of\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C.\n                                    103</a></b>.).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Absence of property which a claimed invention would have been expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art is evidence of unobviousness. Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (Based on prior art disclosures, claimed compounds would have been expected to possess beta-andrenergic blocking activity; the fact that claimed compounds did not possess such activity was an unexpected result sufficient to establish unobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92956","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fssf2ze6"},{"id":"cs_qgrfcils","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_qgrfcils","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (BPAI 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co.","all_citations":["227 USPQ 78"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (BPAI 1985)"},{"id":"se_tlhpwm2e","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_tlhpwm2e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92965","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_b","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_b","section_number":"716.02(b)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Burden on Applicant","children_ids":["pb_5dh7uk35","pb_jrxmntj4","pb_ljh3clar","pb_r5ec4zuh","pb_zzlyqiyi","pb_nwc2tyms","pb_fuhi3olo"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_5dh7uk35","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5dh7uk35","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92965/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT"},{"id":"pb_jrxmntj4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jrxmntj4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e92976\">The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in\n                              results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical\n                              significance.” <i>Ex parte Gelles,</i> 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat.\n                              App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed\n                              polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength “are not entitled to the\n                              weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in\n                              a declaration.”); <i>Ex parte C,</i> 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App.\n                              &amp; Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the\n                              claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical\n                              significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color,\n                              or height of the plant.). See also <i>In re Nolan,</i> 553 F.2d 1261,\n                              1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and <i>In re Eli Lilly,</i> 902\n                              F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93049\">MPEP §\n                                    716.02(c)</a></b>.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength “are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.”); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e"},{"id":"cs_c6gmeurx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_c6gmeurx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte C","all_citations":["27 USPQ2d 1492"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1992,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)"},{"id":"cs_6ats7zlo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6ats7zlo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261 (CCPA 1977)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Nolan","all_citations":["553 F.2d 1261","193 USPQ 641"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1977,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 193 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1977)"},{"id":"pb_ljh3clar","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ljh3clar","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. APPLICANTS HAVE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING PROFFERED DATA</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. APPLICANTS HAVE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING PROFFERED DATA","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92965/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. APPLICANTS HAVE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING PROFFERED DATA"},{"id":"pb_r5ec4zuh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_r5ec4zuh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93006\">“[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any\n                              declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.” <i>Ex parte\n                                 Ishizaka,</i> 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992).\n                              \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.” Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93006","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e"},{"id":"cs_cqup2b5z","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cqup2b5z","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621 (BPAI 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Ishizaka","all_citations":["24 USPQ2d 1621"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1992,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621 (BPAI 1992)"},{"id":"pb_zzlyqiyi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zzlyqiyi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPARATIVE TESTS ARE PROBATIVE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPARATIVE TESTS ARE PROBATIVE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92965/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPARATIVE TESTS ARE PROBATIVE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_nwc2tyms","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nwc2tyms","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93019\">Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct\n                              or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which\n                              is commensurate in scope with the claims. See <i>In re Boesch,</i>\n                              617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93107\">MPEP § 716.02(d)</a></b> -\n                              <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93171\">§\n                                    716.02(e)</a></b>. See <i>In re Blondel,</i> 499\n                              F.2d 1311, 1317, 182 USPQ 294, 298 (CCPA 1974) and <i>In re\n                                 Fouche,</i> 439 F.2d 1237, 1241-42, 169 USPQ 429, 433 (CCPA 1971) for\n                              examples of cases where indirect comparative testing was found sufficient to rebut\n                              a <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness. \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e). See In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 1317, 182 USPQ 294, 298 (CCPA 1974) and In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1241-42, 169 USPQ 429, 433 (CCPA 1971) for examples of cases where indirect comparative testing was found sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e"},{"id":"cs_a25dppqm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_a25dppqm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Boesch","all_citations":["617 F.2d 272","205 USPQ 215"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1980,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)"},{"id":"cs_uuvnwxws","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_uuvnwxws","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311 (CCPA 1974)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Blondel","all_citations":["499 F.2d 1311","182 USPQ 294"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1974,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 182 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1974)"},{"id":"cs_ehtsthay","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ehtsthay","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Fouche","all_citations":["439 F.2d 1237","169 USPQ 429"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"pb_fuhi3olo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_fuhi3olo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93040\">The patentability of an intermediate may be established by\n                              unexpected properties of an end product “when one of ordinary skill in the art\n                              would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for\n                              such an unexpectedly superior activity or property.” <i>In re\n                                 Magerlein,</i> 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). “In\n                              order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’ of the\n                              unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must\n                              identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to\n                              the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the\n                              intermediate and the end product.” <i>Id.</i> at 479.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product “when one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for such an unexpectedly superior activity or property.” In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). “In order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’ of the unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the intermediate and the end product.” Id. at 479.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93040","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_tlhpwm2e"},{"id":"cs_5aam7fby","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5aam7fby","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Magerlein","all_citations":["602 F.2d 366","202 USPQ 473"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1979,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 202 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1979)"},{"id":"se_ce4ck6iy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ce4ck6iy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93049","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_c","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_c","section_number":"716.02(c)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Weighing Evidence of Expected and Unexpected Results","children_ids":["pb_boeiyvlc","pb_ipu4d2gz","pb_iclyhcn7","pb_mid6iapq","pb_bsgzyugv"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_boeiyvlc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_boeiyvlc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED AND EXPECTED PROPERTIES MUST BE WEIGHED</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED AND EXPECTED PROPERTIES MUST BE WEIGHED","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93049/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_ce4ck6iy","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED AND EXPECTED PROPERTIES MUST BE WEIGHED"},{"id":"pb_ipu4d2gz","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ipu4d2gz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93064\">Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence\n                              supporting <i>prima facie</i> obviousness in making a final\n                              determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. <i>In re\n                                 May,</i> 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (Claims directed to a\n                              method of effecting analgesia without producing physical dependence by\n                              administering the levo isomer of a compound having a certain chemical structure\n                              were rejected as obvious over the prior art. Evidence that the compound was\n                              unexpectedly nonaddictive was sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection.\n                              Although the compound also had the expected result of potent analgesia, there was\n                              evidence of record showing that the goal of research in this area was to produce\n                              an analgesic compound which was nonaddictive, enhancing the evidentiary value of\n                              the showing of nonaddictiveness as an indicium of nonobviousness.). See\n                              <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92769\">MPEP\n                                    § 716.01(d)</a></b> for guidance on weighing evidence submitted\n                              to traverse a rejection. \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (Claims directed to a method of effecting analgesia without producing physical dependence by administering the levo isomer of a compound having a certain chemical structure were rejected as obvious over the prior art. Evidence that the compound was unexpectedly nonaddictive was sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection. Although the compound also had the expected result of potent analgesia, there was evidence of record showing that the goal of research in this area was to produce an analgesic compound which was nonaddictive, enhancing the evidentiary value of the showing of nonaddictiveness as an indicium of nonobviousness.). See MPEP § 716.01(d) for guidance on weighing evidence submitted to traverse a rejection.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93064","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ce4ck6iy"},{"id":"cs_y4drnvwo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_y4drnvwo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082 (CCPA 1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re May","all_citations":["574 F.2d 1082","197 USPQ 601"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1978,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)"},{"id":"pb_iclyhcn7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_iclyhcn7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93076\">Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not\n                              shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the\n                              evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of\n                              obviousness. <i>In re Nolan,</i> 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641,\n                              645 (CCPA 1977) (Claims were directed to a display/memory device which was\n                              <i>prima facie</i> obvious over the prior art. The court found that\n                              a higher memory margin and lower operating voltage would have been expected\n                              properties of the claimed device, and that a higher memory margin appears to be\n                              the most significant improvement for a memory device. Although applicant presented\n                              evidence of unexpected properties with regard to lower peak discharge current and\n                              higher luminous efficiency, these properties were not shown to have a significance\n                              equal to or greater than that of the expected higher memory margin and lower\n                              operating voltage. The court held the evidence of nonobviousness was not\n                              sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.); <i>In re Eli\n                                 Lilly,</i> 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Evidence of\n                              improved feed efficiency in steers was not sufficient to rebut <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> case of obviousness based on prior art which specifically\n                              taught the use of compound X537A to enhance weight gain in animals because the\n                              evidence did not show that a significant aspect of the claimed invention would\n                              have been unexpected.). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) (Claims were directed to a display/memory device which was prima facie obvious over the prior art. The court found that a higher memory margin and lower operating voltage would have been expected properties of the claimed device, and that a higher memory margin appears to be the most significant improvement for a memory device. Although applicant presented evidence of unexpected properties with regard to lower peak discharge current and higher luminous efficiency, these properties were not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than that of the expected higher memory margin and lower operating voltage. The court held the evidence of nonobviousness was not sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.); In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Evidence of improved feed efficiency in steers was not sufficient to rebut prima facie case of obviousness based on prior art which specifically taught the use of compound X537A to enhance weight gain in animals because the evidence did not show that a significant aspect of the claimed invention would have been unexpected.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93076","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ce4ck6iy"},{"id":"pb_mid6iapq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mid6iapq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. EXPECTED BENEFICIAL RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. EXPECTED BENEFICIAL RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93049/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_ce4ck6iy","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. EXPECTED BENEFICIAL RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS"},{"id":"pb_bsgzyugv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bsgzyugv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93098\">“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a\n                              claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness\n                              thereof.” <i>In re Gershon,</i> 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602,\n                              604 (CCPA 1967) (resultant decrease of dental enamel solubility accomplished by\n                              adding an acidic buffering agent to a fluoride containing dentifrice was expected\n                              based on the teaching of the prior art); <i>Ex parte Blanc,</i> 13\n                              USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a\n                              process of sterilizing a polyolefinic composition which contains an antioxidant\n                              with high-energy radiation. Although evidence was presented in appellant’s\n                              specification showing that particular antioxidants are effective, the Board\n                              concluded that these beneficial results would have been expected because one of\n                              the references taught a claimed antioxidant is very efficient and provides better\n                              results compared with other prior art antioxidants.).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967) (resultant decrease of dental enamel solubility accomplished by adding an acidic buffering agent to a fluoride containing dentifrice was expected based on the teaching of the prior art); Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a process of sterilizing a polyolefinic composition which contains an antioxidant with high-energy radiation. Although evidence was presented in appellant’s specification showing that particular antioxidants are effective, the Board concluded that these beneficial results would have been expected because one of the references taught a claimed antioxidant is very efficient and provides better results compared with other prior art antioxidants.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93098","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ce4ck6iy"},{"id":"cs_d35q2kc4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_d35q2kc4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Gershon","all_citations":["372 F.2d 535","152 USPQ 602"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1967,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967)"},{"id":"cs_6bb2lopn","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6bb2lopn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (BPAI 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Blanc","all_citations":["13 USPQ2d 1383"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1989,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (BPAI 1989)"},{"id":"se_sblaebq5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_sblaebq5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93107","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_d","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_d","section_number":"716.02(d)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention","children_ids":["pb_gqnntz4x","pb_ifs476i2","pb_bt6ypqop","pb_oupbnugp","pb_jchvg7cx"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_gqnntz4x","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gqnntz4x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93115\">Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly\n                              improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence\n                              of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is\n                              offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be\n                              reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. <i>In re\n                                 Clemens,</i> 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were\n                              directed to a process for removing corrosion at “elevated temperatures” using a\n                              certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature\n                              in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests\n                              with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the\n                              rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term “elevated temperatures” encompassed\n                              temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to\n                              perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C,\n                              was reversed.). See also <i>In re Peterson,</i> 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31,\n                              65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with\n                              the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed\n                              range of about 1-3% rhenium); <i>In re Grasselli,</i> 713 F.2d 731, 741,\n                              218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts\n                              containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection\n                              compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence\n                              insufficient to rebut the <i>prima facie</i> case because experiments\n                              limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at “elevated temperatures” using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term “elevated temperatures” encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93115","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sblaebq5"},{"id":"cs_qkmulq5e","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_qkmulq5e","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029 (CCPA 1980)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Clemens","all_citations":["622 F.2d 1029","206 USPQ 289"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1980,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980)"},{"id":"cs_pvsgssmh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pvsgssmh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Peterson","all_citations":["315 F.3d 1325","65 USPQ2d 1379"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2003,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)"},{"id":"cs_c7byyf7l","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_c7byyf7l","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Grasselli","all_citations":["713 F.2d 731","218 USPQ 769"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"},{"id":"pb_ifs476i2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ifs476i2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. NONOBVIOUSNESS OF A GENUS OR CLAIMED RANGE MAY BE SUPPORTED BY DATA SHOWING UNEXPECTED RESULTS OF A SPECIES OR NARROWER RANGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. NONOBVIOUSNESS OF A GENUS OR CLAIMED RANGE MAY BE SUPPORTED BY DATA SHOWING UNEXPECTED RESULTS OF A SPECIES OR NARROWER RANGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93107/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_sblaebq5","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. NONOBVIOUSNESS OF A GENUS OR CLAIMED RANGE MAY BE SUPPORTED BY DATA SHOWING UNEXPECTED RESULTS OF A SPECIES OR NARROWER RANGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES"},{"id":"pb_bt6ypqop","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_bt6ypqop","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93143\">The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by\n                              evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of\n                              ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified\n                              data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value\n                              thereof. <i>In re Kollman,</i> 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979)\n                              (Claims directed to mixtures of an herbicide known as “FENAC” with a diphenyl\n                              ether herbicide in certain relative proportions were rejected as <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> obvious. Applicant presented evidence alleging unexpected\n                              results testing three species of diphenyl ether herbicides over limited relative\n                              proportion ranges. The court held that the limited number of species exemplified\n                              did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be\n                              obtained for the other diphenyl ether herbicides within the scope of the generic\n                              claims. Claims 6-8 recited a FENAC:diphenyl ether ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 for the\n                              three specific ethers tested. For two of the claimed ethers, unexpected results\n                              were demonstrated over a ratio of 16:1 to 2:1, and the effectiveness increased as\n                              the ratio approached the untested region of the claimed range. The court held\n                              these tests were commensurate in scope with the claims and supported the\n                              nonobviousness thereof. However, for a third ether, data was only provided over\n                              the range of 1:1 to 2:1 where the effectiveness decreased to the “expected level”\n                              as it approached the untested region. This evidence was not sufficient to overcome\n                              the obviousness rejection.); <i>In re Lindner,</i> 457 F.2d 506, 509,\n                              173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a\n                              single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The\n                              court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> case of obviousness because there was “no adequate basis for\n                              reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included\n                              in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.”).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) (Claims directed to mixtures of an herbicide known as “FENAC” with a diphenyl ether herbicide in certain relative proportions were rejected as prima facie obvious. Applicant presented evidence alleging unexpected results testing three species of diphenyl ether herbicides over limited relative proportion ranges. The court held that the limited number of species exemplified did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be obtained for the other diphenyl ether herbicides within the scope of the generic claims. Claims 6-8 recited a FENAC:diphenyl ether ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 for the three specific ethers tested. For two of the claimed ethers, unexpected results were demonstrated over a ratio of 16:1 to 2:1, and the effectiveness increased as the ratio approached the untested region of the claimed range. The court held these tests were commensurate in scope with the claims and supported the nonobviousness thereof. However, for a third ether, data was only provided over the range of 1:1 to 2:1 where the effectiveness decreased to the “expected level” as it approached the untested region. This evidence was not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection.); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was “no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93143","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sblaebq5"},{"id":"cs_7hanz5mq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7hanz5mq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Kollman","all_citations":["595 F.2d 48","201 USPQ 193"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1979,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979)"},{"id":"pb_oupbnugp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_oupbnugp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93107/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_sblaebq5","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE"},{"id":"pb_jchvg7cx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jchvg7cx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93165\">To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants\n                              should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed\n                              range to show the criticality of the claimed range. <i>In re Hill,</i>\n                              284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93165","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sblaebq5"},{"id":"cs_x7fgt73n","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_x7fgt73n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955 (CCPA 1960)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Hill","all_citations":["284 F.2d 955","128 USPQ 197"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1960,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)"},{"id":"se_45pl5i2q","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_45pl5i2q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93171","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_e","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_e","section_number":"716.02(e)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Comparison With Closest Prior Art","children_ids":["pb_zaeq473n","pb_boloigbh","pb_2ab6b2es","pb_jxma42uh","pb_ht4sahsc","pb_35nux6my","pb_y3wlj6dr"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_zaeq473n","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zaeq473n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93175\">An affidavit or declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> must compare the\n                              claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a\n                              <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness. <i>In re\n                                 Burckel,</i> 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). “A comparison of the\n                              <i>claimed</i> invention with the disclosure of each cited reference\n                              to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing\n                              in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the\n                              closest single prior art reference.” <i>In re Merchant,</i> 575 F.2d 865,\n                              868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is\n                              not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be\n                              explained, <i>In re Finley,</i> 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949),\n                              and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation\n                              should be required. <i>In re Armstrong</i>, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281\n                              (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). “A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.” In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q"},{"id":"cs_6afjbamd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6afjbamd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175 (CCPA 1979)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Burckel","all_citations":["592 F.2d 1175","201 USPQ 67"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1979,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)"},{"id":"cs_c7bifajh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_c7bifajh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865 (CCPA 1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Merchant","all_citations":["575 F.2d 865","197 USPQ 785"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1978,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978)"},{"id":"cs_vdtveosk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vdtveosk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130 (CCPA 1949)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Finley","all_citations":["174 F.2d 130","81 USPQ 383"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1949,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949)"},{"id":"cs_3gm5a2vt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3gm5a2vt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132 (CCPA 1960)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Armstrong","all_citations":["280 F.2d 132","126 USPQ 281"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1960,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960)"},{"id":"pb_boloigbh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_boloigbh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH PRIOR ART THAT IS CLOSER THAN THAT APPLIED BY THE EXAMINER</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH PRIOR ART THAT IS CLOSER THAN THAT APPLIED BY THE EXAMINER","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93171/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH PRIOR ART THAT IS CLOSER THAN THAT APPLIED BY THE EXAMINER"},{"id":"pb_2ab6b2es","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2ab6b2es","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93206\">Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that\n                              is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the\n                              examiner. <i>In re Holladay,</i> 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA\n                              1978); <i>Ex parte Humber,</i> 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961) (Claims to\n                              a 13-chloro substituted compound were rejected as obvious over nonchlorinated\n                              analogs of the claimed compound. Evidence showing unexpected results for the\n                              claimed compound as compared with the 9-, 12-, and 14- chloro derivatives of the\n                              compound rebutted the <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness because\n                              the compounds compared against were closer to the claimed invention than the prior\n                              art relied upon.).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961) (Claims to a 13-chloro substituted compound were rejected as obvious over nonchlorinated analogs of the claimed compound. Evidence showing unexpected results for the claimed compound as compared with the 9-, 12-, and 14- chloro derivatives of the compound rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness because the compounds compared against were closer to the claimed invention than the prior art relied upon.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93206","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q"},{"id":"cs_iyhoosqo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_iyhoosqo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384 (CCPA 1978)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Holladay","all_citations":["584 F.2d 384","199 USPQ 516"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1978,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978)"},{"id":"cs_5jf4m7fp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5jf4m7fp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (BPAI 1961)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Humber","all_citations":["217 USPQ 265"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1961,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (BPAI 1961)"},{"id":"pb_jxma42uh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jxma42uh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. COMPARISONS WHEN THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY CLOSE PRIOR ART REFERENCES</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. COMPARISONS WHEN THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY CLOSE PRIOR ART REFERENCES","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93171/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. COMPARISONS WHEN THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY CLOSE PRIOR ART REFERENCES"},{"id":"pb_ht4sahsc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ht4sahsc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93225\">Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art\n                              references will not rebut <i>prima facie</i> obviousness unless the\n                              teachings of the prior art references are sufficiently similar to each other that\n                              the testing of one showing unexpected results would provide the same information\n                              as to the other. <i>In re Johnson,</i> 747 F.2d 1456, 1461, 223 USPQ\n                              1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed compounds differed from the prior art either\n                              by the presence of a trifluoromethyl group instead of a chloride radical, or by\n                              the presence of an unsaturated ester group instead of a saturated ester group.\n                              Although applicant compared the claimed invention with the prior art compound\n                              containing a chloride radical, the court found this evidence insufficient to rebut\n                              the <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness because the evidence did\n                              not show relative effectiveness over all compounds of the closest prior art. An\n                              applicant does not have to test all the compounds taught by each reference,\n                              “[h]owever, where an applicant tests less than all cited compounds, <i> the\n                                 test must be sufficient to permit a conclusion respecting the relative\n                                 effectiveness of applicant’s claimed compounds and the compounds of the closest\n                                 prior art.</i>” <i>Id.</i> (quoting <i>In re\n                                 Payne,</i> 606 F.2d 303, 316, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979)) (emphasis in\n                              original).).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art references will not rebut prima facie obviousness unless the teachings of the prior art references are sufficiently similar to each other that the testing of one showing unexpected results would provide the same information as to the other. In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1461, 223 USPQ 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed compounds differed from the prior art either by the presence of a trifluoromethyl group instead of a chloride radical, or by the presence of an unsaturated ester group instead of a saturated ester group. Although applicant compared the claimed invention with the prior art compound containing a chloride radical, the court found this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because the evidence did not show relative effectiveness over all compounds of the closest prior art. An applicant does not have to test all the compounds taught by each reference, “[h]owever, where an applicant tests less than all cited compounds, the test must be sufficient to permit a conclusion respecting the relative effectiveness of applicant’s claimed compounds and the compounds of the closest prior art.” Id. (quoting In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 316, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979)) (emphasis in original).).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93225","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q"},{"id":"cs_fkiuw4hi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fkiuw4hi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Johnson","all_citations":["747 F.2d 1456","223 USPQ 1260"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 223 USPQ 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"pb_35nux6my","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_35nux6my","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH THE CLOSEST SUBJECT MATTER THAT EXISTS IN THE PRIOR ART</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH THE CLOSEST SUBJECT MATTER THAT EXISTS IN THE PRIOR ART","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93171/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH THE CLOSEST SUBJECT MATTER THAT EXISTS IN THE PRIOR ART"},{"id":"pb_y3wlj6dr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_y3wlj6dr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93253\">Although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed\n                              invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the\n                              claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art.\n                              <i>In re Geiger,</i> 815 F.2d 686, 689, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 1987) (Newman, J., concurring) (Evidence rebutted <i>prima\n                                 facie</i> case by comparing claimed invention with the most relevant\n                              prior art. Note that the majority held the Office failed to establish a\n                              <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness.); <i>In re\n                                 Chapman,</i> 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) (Requiring applicant\n                              to compare claimed invention with polymer suggested by the combination of\n                              references relied upon in the rejection of the claimed invention under\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C.\n                                    103</a></b> “would be requiring comparison of the results of the\n                              invention with the results of the invention.” 357 F.2d at 422, 148 USPQ at\n                              714.).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 689, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Newman, J., concurring) (Evidence rebutted prima facie case by comparing claimed invention with the most relevant prior art. Note that the majority held the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) (Requiring applicant to compare claimed invention with polymer suggested by the combination of references relied upon in the rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 “would be requiring comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention.” 357 F.2d at 422, 148 USPQ at 714.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93253","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_45pl5i2q"},{"id":"cs_kydgc5ug","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_kydgc5ug","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Geiger","all_citations":["815 F.2d 686","2 USPQ2d 1276"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1987,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 2 USPQ2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1987)"},{"id":"cs_l42zqjan","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_l42zqjan","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418 (CCPA 1966)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Chapman","all_citations":["357 F.2d 418","148 USPQ 711"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1966,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966)"},{"id":"se_5my4sjzu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_5my4sjzu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93271","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_f","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_f","section_number":"716.02(f)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Advantages Disclosed or Inherent","children_ids":["pb_h2zorr2y","pb_sxbvmsvs"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_h2zorr2y","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_h2zorr2y","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93275\">The totality of the record must be considered when determining\n                              whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the\n                              art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to\n                              advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. <i>In re\n                                 Chu,</i> 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995)\n                              (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction\n                              catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not\n                              disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that\n                              such placement was a matter of “design choice” should have been considered as part of\n                              the totality of the record. “We have found no cases supporting the position that a\n                              patent applicant’s evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be\n                              contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a\n                              proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the\n                              record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments\n                              proffered during the give-and-take of <i>ex parte</i> patent\n                              prosecution.” 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also <i>In re\n                                 Zenitz,</i> 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that\n                              claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered\n                              because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as\n                              tranquilizer); <i>Ex parte Sasajima,</i> 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App.\n                              1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed\n                              pharmaceutical compound must be considered). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of “design choice” should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. “We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant’s evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution.” 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93275","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5my4sjzu"},{"id":"cs_en23vo64","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_en23vo64","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Chu","all_citations":["66 F.3d 292","36 USPQ2d 1089"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1995,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995)"},{"id":"cs_zzardn4v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zzardn4v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924 (CCPA 1964)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Zenitz","all_citations":["333 F.2d 924","142 USPQ 158"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1964,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964)"},{"id":"cs_sb4qjun3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_sb4qjun3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103 (BPAI 1981)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Sasajima","all_citations":["212 USPQ 103"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1981,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103 (BPAI 1981)"},{"id":"pb_sxbvmsvs","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_sxbvmsvs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93290\">The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical\n                              for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical.\n                              <i>In re Saunders,</i> 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA\n                              1971).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93290","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_5my4sjzu"},{"id":"cs_pmgemwva","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pmgemwva","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Saunders","all_citations":["444 F.2d 599","170 USPQ 213"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 170 USPQ 213 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"se_2z62ogco","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_2z62ogco","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93296","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_g","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_02_g","section_number":"716.02(g)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"[Reserved]","children_ids":["pb_sad2c6hj"],"parent_section_id":"se_bl65w3ts"},{"id":"pb_sad2c6hj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_sad2c6hj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c41_257c3_31e\"><i>[Editor Note: Information pertaining to\n                                 declaration or affidavit form has been moved to <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92085\">MPEP §\n                                       716</a></b>.]</i></p>","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: Information pertaining to declaration or affidavit form has been moved to MPEP § 716.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c41_257c3_31e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_2z62ogco","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"se_la6ikj4f","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_la6ikj4f","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93309","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03","section_number":"716.03","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Commercial Success","children_ids":["pb_hceuz73s","pb_d5kkwvuu","pb_6juc6joa","nq_7yf2vd6q","pb_ha3vpvhl","pb_p4zk7ayr","pb_tkza6m33","pb_yxkh2mge","se_giac226s","se_zmkmapif"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_hceuz73s","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hceuz73s","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. BURDEN OF PRODUCTION FOR EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND NEXUS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. BURDEN OF PRODUCTION FOR EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND NEXUS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93309/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. BURDEN OF PRODUCTION FOR EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND NEXUS"},{"id":"pb_d5kkwvuu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_d5kkwvuu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93324\">An applicant who is asserting commercial success to support its\n                           contention of nonobviousness bears the burden of proof in establishing commercial\n                           success.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An applicant who is asserting commercial success to support its contention of nonobviousness bears the burden of proof in establishing commercial success.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93324","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"pb_6juc6joa","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6juc6joa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93327\">The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that applicant bears the burden\n                           of production for evidence of commercial success, stating:\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that applicant bears the burden of production for evidence of commercial success, stating:","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93327","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"nq_7yf2vd6q","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/nq_7yf2vd6q","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<blockquote id=\"d0e93330\">\n<p id=\"d0e93331\">In the <i>ex parte</i> process of examining a patent\n                              application, however, the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence\n                              which supports or refutes the applicant’s assertion that the sale constitute\n                              commercial success. <i>C.f</i>. <i>Ex parte Remark,</i>\n                              15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Int. 1990)(evidentiary routine of\n                              shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in <i>ex parte</i>\n                              prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing\n                              evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard\n                              evidence of commercial success.\n                           </p>\n</blockquote>","rendered_text_plain":"In the ex parte process of examining a patent application, however, the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant’s assertion that the sale constitute commercial success. C.f. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990)(evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93330","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"narrative_quote","source_anchor":"d0e93330","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f","source_case_id":"cs_nwsngfnc"},{"id":"pb_ha3vpvhl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ha3vpvhl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93346\"><i>In re Huang,</i> 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir.\n                           1996). See also <i>In re GPAC,</i> 57 F.3d 1573, 1580, 35 USPQ2d 1116,\n                           1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); <i>In re Paulsen,</i> 30 F.3d 1475, 1482, 31\n                           USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Evidence of commercial success of articles not\n                           covered by the claims subject to the <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C. 103</a></b> rejection was not\n                           probative of nonobviousness).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Evidence of commercial success of articles not covered by the claims subject to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection was not probative of nonobviousness).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93346","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"cs_5xb574lk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5xb574lk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re GPAC","all_citations":["57 F.3d 1573","35 USPQ2d 1116"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1995,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995)"},{"id":"cs_53kh6kxy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_53kh6kxy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Paulsen","all_citations":["30 F.3d 1475","31 USPQ2d 1671"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1994,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994)"},{"id":"pb_p4zk7ayr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_p4zk7ayr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93360\">The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient\n                           connection between the evidence of commercial success and the claimed invention so\n                           that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness.\n                           <i>Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d\n                           1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92626\">MPEP §§ 716.01(b)</a></b> and\n                           <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">2145</a></b> for guidance on determining if the nexus requirement\n                           is met.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the evidence of commercial success and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP §§ 716.01(b) and 2145 for guidance on determining if the nexus requirement is met.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93360","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"pb_tkza6m33","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tkza6m33","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ABROAD IS RELEVANT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ABROAD IS RELEVANT","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93309/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ABROAD IS RELEVANT"},{"id":"pb_yxkh2mge","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_yxkh2mge","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93373\">Commercial success abroad, as well as in the United States, is\n                           relevant in resolving the issue of nonobviousness. <i>Lindemann Maschinenfabrik\n                              GMBH v. American Hoist &amp; Derrick Co.,</i> 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481\n                           (Fed. Cir. 1984).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Commercial success abroad, as well as in the United States, is relevant in resolving the issue of nonobviousness. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93373","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"cs_e7bh5jkv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_e7bh5jkv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.","all_citations":["730 F.2d 1452","221 USPQ 481"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"se_giac226s","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_giac226s","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93379","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03_a","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03_a","section_number":"716.03(a)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Commercial Success Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention","children_ids":["pb_a4jeagoo","pb_jsu6z3rp","pb_pbrq6hev","pb_nedrqxpm","pb_3whj57pm"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"pb_a4jeagoo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_a4jeagoo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE COMMENSURATE IN SCOPE WITH THE CLAIMS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE COMMENSURATE IN SCOPE WITH THE CLAIMS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93379/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_giac226s","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE COMMENSURATE IN SCOPE WITH THE CLAIMS"},{"id":"pb_jsu6z3rp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jsu6z3rp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93398\">Objective evidence of nonobviousness including commercial success\n                              must be commensurate in scope with the claims. <i>In re Tiffin,</i>\n                              448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) (evidence showing commercial success of\n                              thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope\n                              with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be\n                              commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to\n                              claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. <i>Joy Technologies\n                                 Inc. v. Manbeck,</i> 751 F. Supp. 225, 229, 17 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (D.D.C.\n                              1990), <i>aff’d</i>, 959 F.2d 226, 228, 22 USPQ2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in\n                              allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not\n                              commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). See also\n                              <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e92626\">MPEP §§\n                                    716.01(b)</a></b> and <b><a href=\"s2145.html#d0e212553\">2145</a></b> for more guidance on\n                              determining if the nexus requirement is met.\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Objective evidence of nonobviousness including commercial success must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229, 17 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228, 22 USPQ2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). See also MPEP §§ 716.01(b) and 2145 for more guidance on determining if the nexus requirement is met.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93398","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_giac226s"},{"id":"cs_rcskmd6f","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rcskmd6f","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Tiffin","all_citations":["448 F.2d 791","171 USPQ 294"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"cs_4gln2fqp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4gln2fqp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225 (D.D.C. 1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck","all_citations":["751 F. Supp. 225","17 USPQ2d 1257"],"court":"D.D.C.","decision_year":1990,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990)"},{"id":"pb_pbrq6hev","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_pbrq6hev","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93415\">An affidavit or declaration attributing commercial success to a\n                              product or process “constructed according to the disclosure and claims of [the]\n                              patent application” or other equivalent language does not establish a nexus\n                              between the claimed invention and the commercial success because there is no\n                              evidence that the product or process which has been sold corresponds to the\n                              claimed invention, or that whatever commercial success may have occurred is\n                              attributable to the product or process defined by the claims. <i>Ex parte\n                                 Standish,</i> 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1988).\n                              \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An affidavit or declaration attributing commercial success to a product or process “constructed according to the disclosure and claims of [the] patent application” or other equivalent language does not establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success because there is no evidence that the product or process which has been sold corresponds to the claimed invention, or that whatever commercial success may have occurred is attributable to the product or process defined by the claims. Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93415","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_giac226s"},{"id":"cs_axngs2fo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_axngs2fo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (BPAI 1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Standish","all_citations":["10 USPQ2d 1454"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1988,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (BPAI 1988)"},{"id":"pb_nedrqxpm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nedrqxpm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. REQUIREMENTS WHEN CLAIMED INVENTION IS NOT COEXTENSIVE WITH COMMERCIAL PRODUCT OR PROCESS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. REQUIREMENTS WHEN CLAIMED INVENTION IS NOT COEXTENSIVE WITH COMMERCIAL PRODUCT OR PROCESS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93379/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_giac226s","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. REQUIREMENTS WHEN CLAIMED INVENTION IS NOT COEXTENSIVE WITH COMMERCIAL PRODUCT OR PROCESS"},{"id":"pb_3whj57pm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3whj57pm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93428\">If a particular range is claimed, applicant does not need to show\n                              commercial success at every point in the range. “Where, as here, the claims are\n                              directed to a combination of ranges and procedures not shown by the prior art, and\n                              where substantial commercial success is achieved at an apparently typical point\n                              within those ranges, and the affidavits definitely indicate that operation\n                              throughout the claimed ranges approximates that at the particular points involved\n                              in the commercial operation, we think the evidence as to commercial success is\n                              persuasive.” <i>In re Hollingsworth,</i> 253 F.2d 238, 240, 117 USPQ\n                              182, 184 (CCPA 1958). See also <i>Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff\n                                 Licensing Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (where\n                              the commercially successful product or process is not coextensive with the claimed\n                              invention, applicant must show a legally sufficient relationship between the\n                              claimed feature and the commercial product or process). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"If a particular range is claimed, applicant does not need to show commercial success at every point in the range. “Where, as here, the claims are directed to a combination of ranges and procedures not shown by the prior art, and where substantial commercial success is achieved at an apparently typical point within those ranges, and the affidavits definitely indicate that operation throughout the claimed ranges approximates that at the particular points involved in the commercial operation, we think the evidence as to commercial success is persuasive.” In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238, 240, 117 USPQ 182, 184 (CCPA 1958). See also Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (where the commercially successful product or process is not coextensive with the claimed invention, applicant must show a legally sufficient relationship between the claimed feature and the commercial product or process).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93428","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_giac226s"},{"id":"cs_dohigkzk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_dohigkzk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238 (CCPA 1958)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Hollingsworth","all_citations":["253 F.2d 238","117 USPQ 182"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1958,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238, 117 USPQ 182 (CCPA 1958)"},{"id":"se_zmkmapif","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_zmkmapif","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93437","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03_b","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_03_b","section_number":"716.03(b)","chapter":"700","depth":2,"title":"Commercial Success Derived From Claimed Invention","children_ids":["pb_5wjzwx2y","pb_edbvch5b","pb_vhso6du4","pb_i525djle","pb_oec5fzfa","pb_kyjtedmr","pb_lhbaqgnz","pb_kuk7ta5h","pb_67ocmfyy","pb_v3wlupz7"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_la6ikj4f"},{"id":"pb_5wjzwx2y","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5wjzwx2y","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93437/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION"},{"id":"pb_edbvch5b","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_edbvch5b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93452\">In considering evidence of commercial success, care should be\n                              taken to determine that the commercial success alleged is a result of the\n                              invention claimed, in a marketplace where the consumer is free to choose on the\n                              basis of objective principles, and that such success is not the result of heavy\n                              promotion or advertising, shift in advertising, consumption by purchasers normally\n                              tied to applicant or assignee, or other business events extraneous to the merits\n                              of the claimed invention, etc. <i>In re Mageli,</i> 470 F.2d 1380, 176\n                              USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973) (conclusory statements or opinions that increased sales were\n                              due to the merits of the invention are entitled to little weight); <i>In re\n                                 Noznick,</i> 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973). See also\n                              <i>UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.,</i> 65 F.4th 679, 696, 2023\n                              USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)(where market entry by others was precluded due to\n                              blocking patents, the inference of non-obviousness of the asserted claims from\n                              evidence of commercial success may be weak). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In considering evidence of commercial success, care should be taken to determine that the commercial success alleged is a result of the invention claimed, in a marketplace where the consumer is free to choose on the basis of objective principles, and that such success is not the result of heavy promotion or advertising, shift in advertising, consumption by purchasers normally tied to applicant or assignee, or other business events extraneous to the merits of the claimed invention, etc. In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380, 176 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973) (conclusory statements or opinions that increased sales were due to the merits of the invention are entitled to little weight); In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 696, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)(where market entry by others was precluded due to blocking patents, the inference of non-obviousness of the asserted claims from evidence of commercial success may be weak).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93452","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_dz5di7e6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_dz5di7e6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Mageli","all_citations":["470 F.2d 1380","176 USPQ 305"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1973,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380, 176 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973)"},{"id":"cs_lfkqfk5r","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_lfkqfk5r","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Noznick","all_citations":["478 F.2d 1260","178 USPQ 43"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1973,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973)"},{"id":"cs_mhr7y75h","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mhr7y75h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.","all_citations":["65 F.4th 679","2023 USPQ2d 448"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2023,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)"},{"id":"pb_vhso6du4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vhso6du4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93461\">In <i>ex parte</i> proceedings before the Patent and\n                              Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were\n                              responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of\n                              nonobviousness is to be given any weight. See <i>In re Huang,</i> 100\n                              F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Inventor’s opinion as to the\n                              purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus\n                              between the sales and the claimed invention.). Merely showing that there was\n                              commercial success of an article which embodied the invention is not sufficient.\n                              <i>Ex parte Remark,</i> 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-02 (Bd. Pat. App.\n                              &amp; Inter. 1990). Compare <i>Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing\n                                 Ltd.,</i> 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (In civil\n                              litigation, a patentee does not have to prove that the commercial success is not\n                              due to other factors. “A requirement for proof of the negative of all imaginable\n                              contributing factors would be unfairly burdensome, and contrary to the ordinary\n                              rules of evidence.”).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be given any weight. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention.). Merely showing that there was commercial success of an article which embodied the invention is not sufficient. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-02 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (In civil litigation, a patentee does not have to prove that the commercial success is not due to other factors. “A requirement for proof of the negative of all imaginable contributing factors would be unfairly burdensome, and contrary to the ordinary rules of evidence.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93461","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_2lwsydyk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2lwsydyk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (BPAI 1990)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Remark","all_citations":["15 USPQ2d 1498"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1990,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (BPAI 1990)"},{"id":"pb_i525djle","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_i525djle","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93476\">See also <i>Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls\n                                 Corp.,</i> 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial\n                              success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a\n                              market leader before the introduction of the patented product); <i>In re\n                                 Fielder,</i> 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973) (success of invention\n                              could be due to recent changes in related technology or consumer demand; here\n                              success of claimed voting ballot could be due to the contemporary drive toward\n                              greater use of automated data processing techniques); <i>EWP Corp. v.\n                                 Reliance Universal, Inc.,</i> 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985)\n                              (evidence of licensing is a secondary consideration which must be carefully\n                              appraised as to its evidentiary value because licensing programs may succeed for\n                              reasons unrelated to the unobviousness of the product or process, e.g., license is\n                              mutually beneficial or less expensive than defending infringement suits);\n                              <i>Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,</i> 802 F.2d\n                              1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Evidence of commercial success supported a\n                              conclusion of nonobviousness of claims to an immunometric “sandwich” assay with\n                              monoclonal antibodies. Patentee’s assays became a market leader with 25% of the\n                              market within a few years. Evidence of advertising did not show absence of a nexus\n                              between commercial success and the merits of the claimed invention because\n                              spending 25-35% of sales on marketing was not inordinate (mature companies spent\n                              17-32% of sales in this market), and advertising served primarily to make industry\n                              aware of the product because this is not kind of merchandise that can be sold by\n                              advertising hyperbole.). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product); In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973) (success of invention could be due to recent changes in related technology or consumer demand; here success of claimed voting ballot could be due to the contemporary drive toward greater use of automated data processing techniques); EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (evidence of licensing is a secondary consideration which must be carefully appraised as to its evidentiary value because licensing programs may succeed for reasons unrelated to the unobviousness of the product or process, e.g., license is mutually beneficial or less expensive than defending infringement suits); Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Evidence of commercial success supported a conclusion of nonobviousness of claims to an immunometric “sandwich” assay with monoclonal antibodies. Patentee’s assays became a market leader with 25% of the market within a few years. Evidence of advertising did not show absence of a nexus between commercial success and the merits of the claimed invention because spending 25-35% of sales on marketing was not inordinate (mature companies spent 17-32% of sales in this market), and advertising served primarily to make industry aware of the product because this is not kind of merchandise that can be sold by advertising hyperbole.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93476","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_rt62l7fw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rt62l7fw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.","all_citations":["776 F.2d 309","227 USPQ 766"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_ta3livkp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ta3livkp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Fielder","all_citations":["471 F.2d 690","176 USPQ 300"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1973,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)"},{"id":"cs_36feydyl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_36feydyl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc.","all_citations":["755 F.2d 898","225 USPQ 20"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_ksjkxlua","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ksjkxlua","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.","all_citations":["802 F.2d 1367","231 USPQ 81"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1986,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986)"},{"id":"pb_oec5fzfa","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_oec5fzfa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST FLOW FROM THE FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES DISCLOSED OR INHERENT IN THE SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST FLOW FROM THE FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES DISCLOSED OR INHERENT IN THE SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93437/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST FLOW FROM THE FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES DISCLOSED OR INHERENT IN THE SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION"},{"id":"pb_kyjtedmr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kyjtedmr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93498\">To be pertinent to the issue of nonobviousness, the commercial\n                              success of devices falling within the claims of the patent must flow from the\n                              functions and advantages disclosed or inherent in the description in the\n                              specification. Furthermore, the success of an embodiment within the claims may not\n                              be attributable to improvements or modifications made by others. <i>In re\n                                 Vamco Machine &amp; Tool, Inc.,</i> 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed.\n                              Cir. 1985). See also <i>Merck &amp; Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.</i>, 808 F.3d\n                              829, 833, 117 USPQ2d 1393, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 2015), <i>cert. denied</i>,\n                              137 S. Ct. 297 (2016) (commercial success resulted from a “unique combination” of\n                              ingredients, a synergistic interaction of components, or a specific combination of\n                              specific forms of B-vitamins and other active ingredients, rather than from the\n                              claimed method of “using L-5-MTHF and ‘at least one B-vitamin’”).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"To be pertinent to the issue of nonobviousness, the commercial success of devices falling within the claims of the patent must flow from the functions and advantages disclosed or inherent in the description in the specification. Furthermore, the success of an embodiment within the claims may not be attributable to improvements or modifications made by others. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 833, 117 USPQ2d 1393, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 297 (2016) (commercial success resulted from a “unique combination” of ingredients, a synergistic interaction of components, or a specific combination of specific forms of B-vitamins and other active ingredients, rather than from the claimed method of “using L-5-MTHF and ‘at least one B-vitamin’”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93498","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_apbsxgc3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_apbsxgc3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc.","all_citations":["752 F.2d 1564","224 USPQ 617"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_bgnxd2a5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_bgnxd2a5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.","all_citations":["808 F.3d 829","117 USPQ2d 1393"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2015,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 117 USPQ2d 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2015)"},{"id":"pb_lhbaqgnz","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lhbaqgnz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. IN DESIGN CASES, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEXUS IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. IN DESIGN CASES, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEXUS IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93437/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. IN DESIGN CASES, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEXUS IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT"},{"id":"pb_kuk7ta5h","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_kuk7ta5h","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93514\">Establishing a nexus between commercial success and the claimed\n                              invention is especially difficult in design cases. Evidence of commercial success\n                              must be clearly attributable to the design to be of probative value, and not to\n                              brand name recognition, improved performance, or some other factor.\n                              <i>Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,</i> 728 F.2d 1423, 221\n                              USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (showing of commercial success was not accompanied by\n                              evidence attributing commercial success of Litton microwave oven to the design\n                              thereof).\n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Establishing a nexus between commercial success and the claimed invention is especially difficult in design cases. Evidence of commercial success must be clearly attributable to the design to be of probative value, and not to brand name recognition, improved performance, or some other factor. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (showing of commercial success was not accompanied by evidence attributing commercial success of Litton microwave oven to the design thereof).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93514","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_fyo4rnml","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fyo4rnml","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.","all_citations":["728 F.2d 1423","221 USPQ 97"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"pb_67ocmfyy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_67ocmfyy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>IV. SALES FIGURES MUST BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED</b>","rendered_text_plain":"IV. SALES FIGURES MUST BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93437/b.3","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"IV. SALES FIGURES MUST BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED"},{"id":"pb_v3wlupz7","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_v3wlupz7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93527\">Gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence\n                              as to market share, <i>Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark,\n                                 Inc.,</i> 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (overruled on\n                              other grounds by <i>Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers,\n                                 Inc.,</i> 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)), or as to the\n                              time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally\n                              be expected in the market, <i>Ex parte Standish,</i> 10 USPQ2d 1454\n                              (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1988). \n                           </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (overruled on other grounds by Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93527","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_zmkmapif"},{"id":"cs_ctbmepbr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ctbmepbr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.","all_citations":["770 F.2d 1015","226 USPQ 881"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"cs_xxkyu7nt","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xxkyu7nt","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.","all_citations":["175 F.3d 1356","50 USPQ2d 1672"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1999,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)"},{"id":"se_faosk76v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_faosk76v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93536","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_04","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_04","section_number":"716.04","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Long-Felt Need and Failure of Others","children_ids":["pb_d2z7gxzy","pb_i2jtvvhu","pb_lagv2uf3","pb_xrkymhag","pb_gew3ytfv","pb_jxt4geoz","pb_vjm6ufgk","pb_nhxembve","pb_lgmhevan","pb_ph57clix"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_d2z7gxzy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_d2z7gxzy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MUST SATISFY A LONG-FELT NEED WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED, PERSISTENT, AND NOT SOLVED BY OTHERS</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MUST SATISFY A LONG-FELT NEED WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED, PERSISTENT, AND NOT SOLVED BY OTHERS","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93536/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MUST SATISFY A LONG-FELT NEED WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED, PERSISTENT, AND NOT SOLVED BY OTHERS"},{"id":"pb_i2jtvvhu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_i2jtvvhu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93551\">Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art\n                           recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. The\n                           relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness\n                           depends on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was\n                           recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. <i>In re Gershon,</i>\n                           372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967) (“Since the alleged problem in this\n                           case was first recognized by appellants, and others apparently have not yet become\n                           aware of its existence, it goes without saying that there could not possibly be any\n                           evidence of either a long felt need in the . . . art for a solution to a problem of\n                           dubious existence or failure of others skilled in the art who unsuccessfully\n                           attempted to solve a problem of which they were not aware.”); <i>Orthopedic\n                              Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.,</i> 707 F.2d 1376,\n                           217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Although the claimed invention achieved the desirable\n                           result of reducing inventories, there was no evidence of any prior unsuccessful\n                           attempts to do so.).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depends on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967) (“Since the alleged problem in this case was first recognized by appellants, and others apparently have not yet become aware of its existence, it goes without saying that there could not possibly be any evidence of either a long felt need in the . . . art for a solution to a problem of dubious existence or failure of others skilled in the art who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a problem of which they were not aware.”); Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Although the claimed invention achieved the desirable result of reducing inventories, there was no evidence of any prior unsuccessful attempts to do so.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93551","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_sc6gmadp","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_sc6gmadp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.","all_citations":["707 F.2d 1376","217 USPQ 1281"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"},{"id":"pb_lagv2uf3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lagv2uf3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93560\">Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another\n                           before the invention by the inventor. <i>Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg.\n                              Co.,</i> 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Although\n                           at one time there was a long-felt need for a “do-it-yourself” window shade material\n                           which was adjustable without the use of tools, a prior art product fulfilled the need\n                           by using a scored plastic material which could be torn. “[O]nce another supplied the\n                           key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved”.) \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by the inventor. Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Although at one time there was a long-felt need for a “do-it-yourself” window shade material which was adjustable without the use of tools, a prior art product fulfilled the need by using a scored plastic material which could be torn. “[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved”.)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93560","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_5ms4imng","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5ms4imng","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co.","all_citations":["864 F.2d 757","9 USPQ2d 1417"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1988,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988)"},{"id":"pb_xrkymhag","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xrkymhag","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93566\">Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need.\n                           <i>In re Cavanagh,</i> 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93566","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_72sbojcr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_72sbojcr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Cavanagh","all_citations":["436 F.2d 491","168 USPQ 466"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"pb_gew3ytfv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gew3ytfv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c40_1dbe2_3b5\">See <i>Ex parte Thompson,</i> Appeal\n                           2011-011620 (March 21, 2014) (informative) for the board’s analysis of the\n                           above-mentioned three factors in reversing an obviousness rejection due to evidence\n                           of long felt need.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See Ex parte Thompson, Appeal 2011-011620 (March 21, 2014) (informative) for the board’s analysis of the above-mentioned three factors in reversing an obviousness rejection due to evidence of long felt need.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1dbe2_3b5","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"pb_jxt4geoz","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jxt4geoz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II. LONG-FELT NEED IS MEASURED FROM THE DATE A PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SOLVE IT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. LONG-FELT NEED IS MEASURED FROM THE DATE A PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SOLVE IT","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93536/b.1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. LONG-FELT NEED IS MEASURED FROM THE DATE A PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SOLVE IT"},{"id":"pb_vjm6ufgk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vjm6ufgk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93579\">Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified\n                           and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of\n                           the date of the most pertinent prior art references. <i>Texas Instruments Inc.\n                              v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,</i> 988 F.2d 1165, 1179, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1029 (Fed.\n                           Cir. 1993).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1179, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93579","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_vq5cwdzh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vq5cwdzh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n","all_citations":["988 F.2d 1165","26 USPQ2d 1018"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1993,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993)"},{"id":"pb_nhxembve","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nhxembve","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III. OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESENCE OF A LONG-FELT NEED MUST BE CONSIDERED</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESENCE OF A LONG-FELT NEED MUST BE CONSIDERED","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93536/b.2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESENCE OF A LONG-FELT NEED MUST BE CONSIDERED"},{"id":"pb_lgmhevan","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_lgmhevan","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93592\">The failure to solve a long-felt need may be due to factors such as\n                           lack of interest or lack of appreciation of an invention’s potential or marketability\n                           rather than want of technical know-how. <i>Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics\n                              Corp. of America,</i> 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st. Cir. 1977).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The failure to solve a long-felt need may be due to factors such as lack of interest or lack of appreciation of an invention’s potential or marketability rather than want of technical know-how. Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st. Cir. 1977).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93592","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_7s6d54hl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7s6d54hl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355 (1st Cir. 1977)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America","all_citations":["570 F.2d 355","196 USPQ 657"],"court":"1st Cir.","decision_year":1977,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st Cir. 1977)"},{"id":"pb_ph57clix","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ph57clix","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93598\">See also <i> Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of\n                              Cal.,</i> 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (presence of\n                           legislative regulations for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions did not militate\n                           against existence of long-felt need to reduce the sulfur content in the air);\n                           <i>In re Tiffin,</i> 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) (fact that\n                           affidavit supporting contention of fulfillment of a long-felt need was sworn by a\n                           licensee adds to the weight to be accorded the affidavit, as long as there is a\n                           <i>bona fide</i> licensing agreement entered into at arm’s\n                           length).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See also Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (presence of legislative regulations for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions did not militate against existence of long-felt need to reduce the sulfur content in the air); In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) (fact that affidavit supporting contention of fulfillment of a long-felt need was sworn by a licensee adds to the weight to be accorded the affidavit, as long as there is a bona fide licensing agreement entered into at arm’s length).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93598","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_faosk76v"},{"id":"cs_ybz4gfad","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ybz4gfad","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.","all_citations":["713 F.2d 693","218 USPQ 865"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"},{"id":"cs_vqzbvb4g","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vqzbvb4g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Tiffin","all_citations":["443 F.2d 394","170 USPQ 88"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1971,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971)"},{"id":"se_owqbdbmw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_owqbdbmw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93610","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_05","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_05","section_number":"716.05","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Skepticism of Experts","children_ids":["pb_w4o6s7rw","pb_ysq3gpdy"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_w4o6s7rw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_w4o6s7rw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93614\">“Expressions of disbelief by experts constitute strong evidence of\n                           nonobviousness.” <i>Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of\n                              Cal.,</i> 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing\n                           <i>United States v. Adams,</i> 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-484\n                           (1966)) (The patented process converted all the sulfur compounds in a certain effluent\n                           gas stream to hydrogen sulfide, and thereafter treated the resulting effluent for\n                           removal of hydrogen sulfide. Before learning of the patented process, chemical experts,\n                           aware of earlier failed efforts to reduce the sulfur content of effluent gas streams,\n                           were of the opinion that reducing sulfur compounds to hydrogen sulfide would not\n                           adequately solve the problem.).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“Expressions of disbelief by experts constitute strong evidence of nonobviousness.” Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-484 (1966)) (The patented process converted all the sulfur compounds in a certain effluent gas stream to hydrogen sulfide, and thereafter treated the resulting effluent for removal of hydrogen sulfide. Before learning of the patented process, chemical experts, aware of earlier failed efforts to reduce the sulfur content of effluent gas streams, were of the opinion that reducing sulfur compounds to hydrogen sulfide would not adequately solve the problem.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93614","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_owqbdbmw"},{"id":"pb_ysq3gpdy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ysq3gpdy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93623\">“The skepticism of an expert, expressed before these inventors proved\n                           him wrong, is entitled to fair evidentiary weight, . . . as are the five to six years of\n                           research that preceded the claimed invention.” <i>In re Dow Chemical\n                              Co.,</i> 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988); <i>Burlington\n                              Industries Inc. v. Quigg, </i>822 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1987)\n                           (testimony that the invention met with initial incredulity and skepticism of experts was\n                           sufficient to rebut the <i>prima facie</i> case of obviousness based on the\n                           prior art).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“The skepticism of an expert, expressed before these inventors proved him wrong, is entitled to fair evidentiary weight, . . . as are the five to six years of research that preceded the claimed invention.” In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (testimony that the invention met with initial incredulity and skepticism of experts was sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness based on the prior art).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93623","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_owqbdbmw"},{"id":"cs_5527m26t","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5527m26t","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Dow Chemical Co.","all_citations":["837 F.2d 469","5 USPQ2d 1529"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1988,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988)"},{"id":"cs_7hxujx7v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7hxujx7v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg","all_citations":["822 F.2d 1581","3 USPQ2d 1436"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1987,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1987)"},{"id":"se_sgq73pae","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_sgq73pae","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93635","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_06","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_06","section_number":"716.06","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Copying","children_ids":["pb_wknakoa6","pb_grzexrtw","pb_goov2avj"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_wknakoa6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wknakoa6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93639\">Another form of secondary evidence which may be presented by applicants\n                           during prosecution of an application, but which is more often presented during\n                           litigation, is evidence that competitors in the marketplace are copying the invention\n                           instead of using the prior art. <i>Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports,\n                              Inc.,</i> 392 F.3d 1317, 1325, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Our\n                           cases do establish that copying by a competitor may be a relevant consideration in the\n                           secondary factor analysis”). As indicated by the Federal Circuit in <i>Wyers v.\n                              Master Lock Co.,</i> 616 F.3d 1231, 1246, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1537 (Fed. Cir.\n                           2010), copying “… requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which\n                           may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as\n                           disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph\n                           as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with\n                           substantial similarity to the patented product.” . \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Another form of secondary evidence which may be presented by applicants during prosecution of an application, but which is more often presented during litigation, is evidence that competitors in the marketplace are copying the invention instead of using the prior art. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Our cases do establish that copying by a competitor may be a relevant consideration in the secondary factor analysis”). As indicated by the Federal Circuit in Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2010), copying “… requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product.” .","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93639","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sgq73pae"},{"id":"cs_2wedizgs","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2wedizgs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.","all_citations":["392 F.3d 1317","73 USPQ2d 1225"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2004,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004)"},{"id":"cs_gyetgtdd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gyetgtdd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co.","all_citations":["616 F.3d 1231","95 USPQ2d 1525"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2010,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010)"},{"id":"pb_grzexrtw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_grzexrtw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c40_1dca6_17\">Evidence that shows access to a competitor’s non-public\n                           information and use of that information to develop a product may be persuasive evidence\n                           of copying. <i>Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,</i> 941 F.3d 1133, 1139\n                           (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Liqwd presented evidence, such as emails and declarations, that showed\n                           L’Oreal had access to the then-confidential disclosure of the patent application and\n                           L’Oreal’s subsequent loss of interest in purchasing Liqwd’s technology). Evidence of\n                           copying was persuasive of nonobviousness when an alleged infringer tried for a\n                           substantial length of time to design a product or process similar to the claimed\n                           invention, but failed and then copied the claimed invention instead.  <i>Dow Chem.\n                              Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.,</i> 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987)\n                           and <i>Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co.,</i> 774 F.2d 1082,\n                           1098-99, 227 USPQ 337, 348, 349 (Fed. Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S.\n                           809, 229 USPQ 478 (1986),  on remand, 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987)\n                           (evidence of copying found persuasive of nonobviousness where admitted infringer failed\n                           to satisfactorily produce a solution after 10 years of effort and expense). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Evidence that shows access to a competitor’s non-public information and use of that information to develop a product may be persuasive evidence of copying. Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Liqwd presented evidence, such as emails and declarations, that showed L’Oreal had access to the then-confidential disclosure of the patent application and L’Oreal’s subsequent loss of interest in purchasing Liqwd’s technology). Evidence of copying was persuasive of nonobviousness when an alleged infringer tried for a substantial length of time to design a product or process similar to the claimed invention, but failed and then copied the claimed invention instead. Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1098-99, 227 USPQ 337, 348, 349 (Fed. Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 809, 229 USPQ 478 (1986), on remand, 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (evidence of copying found persuasive of nonobviousness where admitted infringer failed to satisfactorily produce a solution after 10 years of effort and expense).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1dca6_17","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sgq73pae"},{"id":"cs_mjqk3454","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mjqk3454","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.","all_citations":["941 F.3d 1133"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2019,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019)"},{"id":"cs_tvfuqaks","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_tvfuqaks","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.","all_citations":["816 F.2d 617","2 USPQ2d 1350"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1987,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987)"},{"id":"cs_yqziio5w","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_yqziio5w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co.","all_citations":["774 F.2d 1082","227 USPQ 337"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1985,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)"},{"id":"pb_goov2avj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_goov2avj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347\">However, more than the mere fact of copying is necessary\n                           to make that action significant because copying may be attributable to other factors\n                           such as a lack of concern for patent property or contempt for the patentee’s ability to\n                           enforce the patent.  <i>Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark,\n                              Inc.,</i> 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)  (overruled on other\n                           grounds by <i>Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.,</i> 175 F.3d\n                           1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Alleged copying is not persuasive of\n                           nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other\n                           manufacturer had not expended great effort to develop its own\n                           solution.  <i>Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.,</i> 776 F.2d 309,\n                           227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also  <i>Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment\n                              Co.,</i> 740 F.2d 1560, 1568, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of\n                           copying not found persuasive of nonobviousness because the basic concepts of a plastic\n                           support device using a ball and socket joint were developed prior to learning of their\n                           competitor’s device). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"However, more than the mere fact of copying is necessary to make that action significant because copying may be attributable to other factors such as a lack of concern for patent property or contempt for the patentee’s ability to enforce the patent. Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (overruled on other grounds by Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer had not expended great effort to develop its own solution. Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1568, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying not found persuasive of nonobviousness because the basic concepts of a plastic support device using a ball and socket joint were developed prior to learning of their competitor’s device).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_sgq73pae"},{"id":"cs_klgihb6b","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_klgihb6b","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co.","all_citations":["740 F.2d 1560","224 USPQ 195"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1984,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984)"},{"id":"se_fduzxdgq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_fduzxdgq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93668","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_07","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_07","section_number":"716.07","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Inoperability of References","children_ids":["pb_mtgoom7z","pb_244jxuh3","pb_nexxxsgv","pb_h7gfe46n","pb_wh4oyusr"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_mtgoom7z","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mtgoom7z","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93672\">Since every patent is presumed valid (<b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e305845\">35 U.S.C. 282</a></b>),\n                           and since that presumption includes the presumption of operability\n                           <i>(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe,</i> 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir.\n                           1935), examiners should not express any opinion on the operability of a patent.\n                           Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference\n                           must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence.\n                           <i>In re Sasse,</i> 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Since every patent is presumed valid (35 U.S.C. 282), and since that presumption includes the presumption of operability (Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935), examiners should not express any opinion on the operability of a patent. Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93672","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fduzxdgq"},{"id":"cs_k2xdtng4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_k2xdtng4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1935)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe","all_citations":["78 F.2d 199","25 USPQ 216"],"court":"D.C. Cir.","decision_year":1935,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935)"},{"id":"cs_3l3runm2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3l3runm2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675 (CCPA 1980)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Sasse","all_citations":["629 F.2d 675","207 USPQ 107"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1980,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)"},{"id":"st_pzza6zjm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_pzza6zjm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"282","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 282"},{"id":"pb_244jxuh3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_244jxuh3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93684\">Further, since in a patent it is presumed that a process if used by one\n                           skilled in the art will produce the product or result described therein, such\n                           presumption is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the\n                           disclosure without obtaining the alleged product. <i>In re Weber,</i> 405\n                           F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969). It is to be presumed also that skilled workers\n                           would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results,\n                           make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The\n                           failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded\n                           great weight. <i>In re Michalek,</i> 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947);\n                           <i>In re Reid,</i> 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Further, since in a patent it is presumed that a process if used by one skilled in the art will produce the product or result described therein, such presumption is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the disclosure without obtaining the alleged product. In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969). It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93684","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fduzxdgq"},{"id":"cs_pq4dgpma","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pq4dgpma","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Weber","all_citations":["405 F.2d 1403","160 USPQ 549"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1969,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969)"},{"id":"cs_2tq3ui37","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2tq3ui37","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229 (CCPA 1947)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Michalek","all_citations":["162 F.2d 229","74 USPQ 107"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1947,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947)"},{"id":"cs_rky2q5qd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rky2q5qd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998 (CCPA 1950)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Reid","all_citations":["179 F.2d 998","84 USPQ 478"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1950,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950)"},{"id":"pb_nexxxsgv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nexxxsgv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93696\">Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts inoperability in\n                           features of the reference which are not relied upon, the reference is still effective as\n                           to other features which are operative. <i>In re Shepherd,</i> 172 F.2d 560,\n                           80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts inoperability in features of the reference which are not relied upon, the reference is still effective as to other features which are operative. In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93696","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fduzxdgq"},{"id":"cs_bih7kjqe","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_bih7kjqe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560 (CCPA 1949)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Shepherd","all_citations":["172 F.2d 560","80 USPQ 495"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1949,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949)"},{"id":"pb_h7gfe46n","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_h7gfe46n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93702\">Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts that the reference\n                           relied upon is inoperative, the claims represented by applicant must distinguish from\n                           the alleged inoperative reference disclosure. <i>In re Crosby,</i> 157 F.2d\n                           198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946). See also <i>In re Epstein,</i> 32 F.3d 1559, 31\n                           USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (lack of diagrams, flow charts, and other details in the\n                           prior art references did not render them nonenabling in view of the fact that\n                           applicant’s own specification failed to provide such detailed information, and that one\n                           skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features of the references). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts that the reference relied upon is inoperative, the claims represented by applicant must distinguish from the alleged inoperative reference disclosure. In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946). See also In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (lack of diagrams, flow charts, and other details in the prior art references did not render them nonenabling in view of the fact that applicant’s own specification failed to provide such detailed information, and that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features of the references).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93702","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fduzxdgq"},{"id":"cs_72tdkfwg","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_72tdkfwg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1946)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Crosby","all_citations":["157 F.2d 198","71 USPQ 73"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1946,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946)"},{"id":"cs_7vav5x45","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_7vav5x45","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Epstein","all_citations":["32 F.3d 1559","31 USPQ2d 1817"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1994,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)"},{"id":"pb_wh4oyusr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_wh4oyusr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93711\">If a patent teaches or suggests the claimed invention, an affidavit or\n                           declaration by patentee that they did not intend the disclosed invention to be used as\n                           claimed by applicant is immaterial. <i>In re Pio,</i> 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ\n                           177 (CCPA 1954). Compare <i>In re Yale,</i> 434 F.2d 666, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA\n                           1970) (Correspondence from a co-author of a literature article confirming that the\n                           article misidentified a compound through a typographical error that would have been\n                           obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art was persuasive evidence that the erroneously\n                           typed compound was not put in the possession of the public.).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"If a patent teaches or suggests the claimed invention, an affidavit or declaration by patentee that they did not intend the disclosed invention to be used as claimed by applicant is immaterial. In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1954). Compare In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1970) (Correspondence from a co-author of a literature article confirming that the article misidentified a compound through a typographical error that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art was persuasive evidence that the erroneously typed compound was not put in the possession of the public.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93711","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_fduzxdgq"},{"id":"cs_wnbqpech","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_wnbqpech","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1954)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Pio","all_citations":["217 F.2d 956","104 USPQ 177"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1954,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1954)"},{"id":"cs_567wtuyr","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_567wtuyr","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666 (CCPA 1970)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Yale","all_citations":["434 F.2d 666","168 USPQ 46"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1970,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1970)"},{"id":"se_mhe5qudj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_mhe5qudj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93720","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_08","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_08","section_number":"716.08","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Utility and Operability of Applicant’s Disclosure","children_ids":["pb_aa7srgeo"],"revision_tag":"R-08.2012","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_aa7srgeo","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_aa7srgeo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93724\">See <b><a href=\"s2107.html#d0e199419\">MPEP\n                                 § 2107.02</a></b>, for guidance on when it is proper to require\n                           evidence of utility or operativeness, and how to evaluate any evidence which is\n                           submitted to overcome a rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376\">35 U.S.C. 101</a></b> for lack of utility.\n                           See <b><a href=\"s2107.html#d0e198469\">MPEP §\n                                 2107</a></b> - <b><a href=\"s2107.html#d0e200058\">§ 2107.03</a></b> generally for utility\n                           examination guidelines and an overview of legal precedent relevant to the utility\n                           requirement of <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376\">35 U.S.C. 101</a></b>.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 2107.02, for guidance on when it is proper to require evidence of utility or operativeness, and how to evaluate any evidence which is submitted to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility. See MPEP § 2107 - § 2107.03 generally for utility examination guidelines and an overview of legal precedent relevant to the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93724","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_mhe5qudj"},{"id":"st_keb5vdhh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_keb5vdhh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"101","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 101"},{"id":"se_jxfmnqwm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_jxfmnqwm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93742","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_09","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_09","section_number":"716.09","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Sufficiency of Disclosure","children_ids":["pb_f6ssncjk","pb_3oepmli6","pb_k5nqdqds","pb_3uwj5x56"],"revision_tag":"R-11.2013","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_f6ssncjk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_f6ssncjk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93746\">See <b><a href=\"s2164.html#d0e215224\">MPEP\n                                 § 2164</a></b> - <b><a href=\"s2164.html#d0e216899\">§ 2164.08(c)</a></b> for guidance in\n                           determining whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure in compliance with\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5\">35 U.S.C.\n                                 112(a)</a></b> or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 2164 - § 2164.08(c) for guidance in determining whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93746","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_jxfmnqwm"},{"id":"st_ii42pq7g","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ii42pq7g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"112","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)"},{"id":"pb_3oepmli6","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3oepmli6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93758\">Once the examiner has established a <i>prima facie</i> case\n                           of lack of enablement, the burden falls on the applicant to present persuasive\n                           arguments, supported by suitable proofs where necessary, that one skilled in the art\n                           would have been able to make and use the claimed invention using the disclosure as a\n                           guide. <i>In re Brandstadter,</i> 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).\n                           Evidence to supplement a specification which on its face appears deficient under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824\">35 U.S.C.\n                                 112</a></b> must establish that the information which must be read into\n                           the specification to make it complete would have been known to those of ordinary skill\n                           in the art. <i>In re Howarth,</i> 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981)\n                           (copies of patent specifications which had been opened for inspection in Rhodesia,\n                           Panama, and Luxembourg prior to the U.S. filing date of the applicant were not\n                           sufficient to overcome a rejection for lack of enablement under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5\">35 U.S.C.\n                                 112(a)</a></b> or <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302824\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112</a></b>, first\n                           paragraph).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Once the examiner has established a prima facie case of lack of enablement, the burden falls on the applicant to present persuasive arguments, supported by suitable proofs where necessary, that one skilled in the art would have been able to make and use the claimed invention using the disclosure as a guide. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973). Evidence to supplement a specification which on its face appears deficient under 35 U.S.C. 112 must establish that the information which must be read into the specification to make it complete would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981) (copies of patent specifications which had been opened for inspection in Rhodesia, Panama, and Luxembourg prior to the U.S. filing date of the applicant were not sufficient to overcome a rejection for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_jxfmnqwm"},{"id":"cs_asgdrrvw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_asgdrrvw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103 (CCPA 1981)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Howarth","all_citations":["654 F.2d 103","210 USPQ 689"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1981,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981)"},{"id":"pb_k5nqdqds","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_k5nqdqds","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93776\">Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an\n                           application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish\n                           facts which the specification itself should recite. <i>In re Buchner,</i>\n                           929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Expert described how he would construct\n                           elements necessary to the claimed invention whose construction was not described in the\n                           application or the prior art; this was not sufficient to demonstrate that such\n                           construction was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.); <i>In re\n                              Smyth,</i> 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts which the specification itself should recite. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Expert described how he would construct elements necessary to the claimed invention whose construction was not described in the application or the prior art; this was not sufficient to demonstrate that such construction was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.); In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93776","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_jxfmnqwm"},{"id":"cs_pbmuzl7v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_pbmuzl7v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Buchner","all_citations":["929 F.2d 660","18 USPQ2d 1331"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1991,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991)"},{"id":"cs_ghvgqipi","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ghvgqipi","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982 (CCPA 1951)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Smyth","all_citations":["189 F.2d 982","90 USPQ 106"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1951,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951)"},{"id":"pb_3uwj5x56","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3uwj5x56","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93785\">Affidavits or declarations purporting to explain the disclosure or to\n                           interpret the disclosure of a pending application are usually not considered.\n                           <i>In re Oppenauer,</i> 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944). But see\n                           <i> Glaser v. Strickland,</i> 220 USPQ 446 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983) which\n                           reexamines the rationale on which <i>In re Oppenauer</i> was based in light\n                           of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Board stated as a general proposition “Opinion\n                           testimony which merely purports to state that a claim or count, is ‘disclosed’ in an\n                           application involved in an interference . . . should not be given any weight. Opinion\n                           testimony which purports to state that a particular feature or limitation of a claim or\n                           count is disclosed in an application involved in an interference and which explains the\n                           underlying factual basis for the opinion may be helpful and can be admitted. The weight\n                           to which the latter testimony may be entitled must be evaluated strictly on a\n                           case-by-case basis.” \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits or declarations purporting to explain the disclosure or to interpret the disclosure of a pending application are usually not considered. In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944). But see Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983) which reexamines the rationale on which In re Oppenauer was based in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Board stated as a general proposition “Opinion testimony which merely purports to state that a claim or count, is ‘disclosed’ in an application involved in an interference . . . should not be given any weight. Opinion testimony which purports to state that a particular feature or limitation of a claim or count is disclosed in an application involved in an interference and which explains the underlying factual basis for the opinion may be helpful and can be admitted. The weight to which the latter testimony may be entitled must be evaluated strictly on a case-by-case basis.”","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93785","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_jxfmnqwm"},{"id":"cs_ymwgzcto","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ymwgzcto","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974 (CCPA 1944)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Oppenauer","all_citations":["143 F.2d 974","62 USPQ 297"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1944,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944)"},{"id":"cs_qxtemxch","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_qxtemxch","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (BPAI 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Glaser v. Strickland","all_citations":["220 USPQ 446"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (BPAI 1983)"},{"id":"se_ztb4getl","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ztb4getl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93797","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_10","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716_10","section_number":"716.10","chapter":"700","depth":1,"title":"Attribution Affidavit or Declaration to Overcome Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103","children_ids":["pb_76xf4vjc","pb_rjp6lvdk","pb_r6jomfuk","pb_hcgm45yx","pb_iawg3hsy","pb_tju4rtiy","pb_cl4ago3v","pb_zm5s3nfb","pb_nrnn3v6m","pb_4jyw6hz2","pb_p4uao2cu","we_wkbiqcnz","we_oopjidgv","pb_7jhfesw3"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019","parent_section_id":"se_moosgfuu"},{"id":"pb_76xf4vjc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_76xf4vjc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e\"><i>[Editor Note: This MPEP section is <b id=\"\">not applicable</b> to applications\n                              subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon\n                              to overcome a rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302424\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)</a></b>. See\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d917_1bef1_2b\">35\n                                    U.S.C. 100 (note)</a></b> and <b><a href=\"s2159.html#ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd\">MPEP §\n                                    2159</a></b>. For a discussion of <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323465\">37 CFR 1.130</a></b>,\n                              affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications\n                              subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see\n                              <b><a href=\"s717.html#ch700_d1ffd2_235c5_25d\">MPEP §\n                                    717</a></b>. “Derivation” or \"derived\" as used in the discussion\n                              below is in the context of pre-AIA law. “Derivation proceedings” as created in the\n                              AIA are discussed in <b><a href=\"s2310.html#ch2300_d2988c_24ad0_c7\">MPEP § 2310</a></b> et seq.]</i></p>","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. “Derivation” or \"derived\" as used in the discussion below is in the context of pre-AIA law. “Derivation proceedings” as created in the AIA are discussed in MPEP § 2310 et seq.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"st_eiprdrak","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_eiprdrak","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["g"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)"},{"id":"st_qlhihx44","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_qlhihx44","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"100","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 100"},{"id":"st_bllk6i34","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_bllk6i34","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.130","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.130"},{"id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rjp6lvdk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93801\">Under certain circumstances an affidavit or declaration may be submitted\n                           which attempts to attribute an activity, a reference or part of a reference to the\n                           inventor or at least one joint inventor to overcome a rejection based on\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n                                 102</a></b> prior art. If successful, the activity or the reference is no\n                           longer applicable. When subject matter, disclosed in a patent or patent application\n                           (reference) naming an inventive entity including inventor S and another joint inventor\n                           is claimed in a later application naming inventor S without the joint inventor, the\n                           joint patent or joint patent application publication is a valid reference available as\n                           prior art under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), or (f)</a></b> until overcome by an\n                           affidavit or declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504\">37 CFR 1.131(a)</a></b> showing prior\n                           invention (see <b><a href=\"s715.html#d0e89737\">MPEP §\n                                 715</a></b>) or by an affidavit or declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b>. An\n                           unequivocal declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> by S that he/she\n                           conceived or invented the subject matter that was disclosed but not claimed in the\n                           patent or patent application publication and relied on in the rejection has been\n                           sufficient to overcome the rejection. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA\n                           1982)(declaration corroborated by attached drawing). Depending on the situation,\n                           documentation created contemporaneously with the conception/invention and/or\n                           declarations/affidavits by the other inventor(s) named in the reference may be used to\n                           corroborate inventorship. See <i>EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of\n                              Am., Inc.,</i> 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Where the\n                           reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication which includes a claim\n                           reciting the subject matter relied upon in a rejection and that subject matter\n                           anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application\n                           under examination, a declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> must also explain the\n                           presence of the additional inventor in the reference (e.g., the disclosure in claim 1 of\n                           the reference is relied upon to reject the claims; the affidavit or declaration explains\n                           that S is the sole inventor of claim 1, and the additional inventor and S are joint\n                           inventors of claim 2 of the reference). Testimony or disclaimer by the other inventor\n                           named in the reference is usually not required but, if submitted, should be considered\n                           by the examiner.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Under certain circumstances an affidavit or declaration may be submitted which attempts to attribute an activity, a reference or part of a reference to the inventor or at least one joint inventor to overcome a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art. If successful, the activity or the reference is no longer applicable. When subject matter, disclosed in a patent or patent application (reference) naming an inventive entity including inventor S and another joint inventor is claimed in a later application naming inventor S without the joint inventor, the joint patent or joint patent application publication is a valid reference available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), or (f) until overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention (see MPEP § 715) or by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. An unequivocal declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by S that he/she conceived or invented the subject matter that was disclosed but not claimed in the patent or patent application publication and relied on in the rejection has been sufficient to overcome the rejection. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)(declaration corroborated by attached drawing). Depending on the situation, documentation created contemporaneously with the conception/invention and/or declarations/affidavits by the other inventor(s) named in the reference may be used to corroborate inventorship. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Where the reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication which includes a claim reciting the subject matter relied upon in a rejection and that subject matter anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application under examination, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must also explain the presence of the additional inventor in the reference (e.g., the disclosure in claim 1 of the reference is relied upon to reject the claims; the affidavit or declaration explains that S is the sole inventor of claim 1, and the additional inventor and S are joint inventors of claim 2 of the reference). Testimony or disclaimer by the other inventor named in the reference is usually not required but, if submitted, should be considered by the examiner.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"cs_6h6k77by","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6h6k77by","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.","all_citations":["859 F.3d 1341","123 USPQ2d 1146"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":2017,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017)"},{"id":"cs_czwd5nbm","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_czwd5nbm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1982)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re DeBaun","all_citations":["687 F.2d 459","214 USPQ 933"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1982,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)"},{"id":"st_wrfmgtn5","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_wrfmgtn5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102"},{"id":"st_chovvrcv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_chovvrcv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)"},{"id":"st_6fovhoei","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_6fovhoei","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.131","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.131(a)"},{"id":"pb_r6jomfuk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_r6jomfuk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_d24be8_17223_d0\">Note that an affidavit or declaration under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323512\">37 CFR\n                                 1.131(a)</a></b> cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S.\n                           patent or U.S. patent application publication naming a different inventive entity which\n                           claims interfering subject matter as defined in <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e359662\">37 CFR 41.203(a)</a></b>. See\n                           <b><a href=\"s715.html#d0e91264\">MPEP §\n                                 715.05</a></b>.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Note that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication naming a different inventive entity which claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_17223_d0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"st_3x52cslb","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_3x52cslb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"41.203","subsection_path":["a"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 41.203(a)"},{"id":"pb_hcgm45yx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hcgm45yx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305\">For applications subject to current <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52\">35 U.S.C.\n                                 102</a></b>, see <b><a href=\"s717.html#ch700_d1ffd2_235c5_25d\">MPEP §§ 717</a></b>, <b><a href=\"s2153.html#ch2100_d20033_24b48_9c\">2153</a></b> and\n                           <b><a href=\"s2154.html#ch2100_d20033_274f5_338\">2154</a></b>. \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP §§ 717, 2153 and 2154.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"pb_iawg3hsy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_iawg3hsy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93816\">Where there is a published article identifying the authorship\n                           (<b><a href=\"s715.html#d0e90779\">MPEP §\n                                 715.01(c)</a></b>) or a patent or an application publication\n                           identifying the inventorship (<b><a href=\"s715.html#d0e90674\">MPEP § 715.01(a)</a></b>) that discloses\n                           subject matter being claimed in an application undergoing examination, the designation\n                           of authorship or inventorship does not raise a presumption of inventorship with respect\n                           to the subject matter disclosed in the article or with respect to the subject matter\n                           disclosed but not claimed in the patent or published application so as to justify a\n                           rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)</a></b>. \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where there is a published article identifying the authorship (MPEP § 715.01(c)) or a patent or an application publication identifying the inventorship (MPEP § 715.01(a)) that discloses subject matter being claimed in an application undergoing examination, the designation of authorship or inventorship does not raise a presumption of inventorship with respect to the subject matter disclosed in the article or with respect to the subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the patent or published application so as to justify a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93816","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"st_f5oboo62","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_f5oboo62","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["f"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)"},{"id":"pb_tju4rtiy","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tju4rtiy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93828\">However, it is incumbent upon the applicant in the application, in\n                           response to an inquiry regarding the appropriate inventorship under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n                                 102(f)</a></b> or to rebut a rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or\n                                 (e)</a></b>, to provide a satisfactory showing by way of affidavit or\n                           declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37\n                                 CFR 1.132</a></b> that the inventorship of the application is correct in\n                           that the reference discloses subject matter derived from the inventor or at least one\n                           joint inventor of the application undergoing examination rather than invented by the\n                           author, patentee, or applicant of the published application notwithstanding the\n                           authorship of the article or the inventorship of the patent or published application.\n                           <i>In re Katz,</i> 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982)\n                           (inquiry is appropriate to clarify any ambiguity created by an article regarding\n                           inventorship and it is then incumbent upon the applicant to provide “a satisfactory\n                           showing that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that [inventor or at least one joint\n                           inventor] is the ... inventor” of the subject matter disclosed in the article and\n                           claimed in the application).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"However, it is incumbent upon the applicant in the application, in response to an inquiry regarding the appropriate inventorship under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or to rebut a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e), to provide a satisfactory showing by way of affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 that the inventorship of the application is correct in that the reference discloses subject matter derived from the inventor or at least one joint inventor of the application undergoing examination rather than invented by the author, patentee, or applicant of the published application notwithstanding the authorship of the article or the inventorship of the patent or published application. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982) (inquiry is appropriate to clarify any ambiguity created by an article regarding inventorship and it is then incumbent upon the applicant to provide “a satisfactory showing that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that [inventor or at least one joint inventor] is the ... inventor” of the subject matter disclosed in the article and claimed in the application).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93828","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"cs_v2dbagsv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_v2dbagsv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Katz","all_citations":["687 F.2d 450","215 USPQ 14"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1982,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)"},{"id":"pb_cl4ago3v","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cl4ago3v","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93843\">An uncontradicted “unequivocal statement” from an inventor or joint\n                           inventor regarding the subject matter disclosed in an article, patent, or published\n                           application has been accepted as establishing inventorship. <i>In re\n                              DeBaun,</i> 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)(declaration\n                           corroborated by attached drawing). Depending on the situation, documentation created\n                           contemporaneously with the conception/invention and/or declarations/affidavits by the\n                           other inventor(s) named in the reference may be used to corroborate inventorship. See\n                           <i>EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,</i> 859 F.3d\n                           1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). When additional documentary evidence contradicts\n                           statements made by the inventor or at least one joint inventor with respect to\n                           inventorship, it may be appropriate to maintain the rejection(s). <i>Ex parte\n                              Kroger,</i> 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (a rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n                                 102(f)</a></b> was affirmed notwithstanding declarations by the alleged\n                           actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a nonapplicant author submitting a\n                           letter declaring the author’s inventorship); <i>In re Carreira,</i> 532 F.2d\n                           1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976) (disclaiming declarations from patentees were directed at\n                           the generic invention and not at the claimed species, hence no need to consider\n                           derivation of the subject matter).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"An uncontradicted “unequivocal statement” from an inventor or joint inventor regarding the subject matter disclosed in an article, patent, or published application has been accepted as establishing inventorship. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)(declaration corroborated by attached drawing). Depending on the situation, documentation created contemporaneously with the conception/invention and/or declarations/affidavits by the other inventor(s) named in the reference may be used to corroborate inventorship. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). When additional documentary evidence contradicts statements made by the inventor or at least one joint inventor with respect to inventorship, it may be appropriate to maintain the rejection(s). Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) was affirmed notwithstanding declarations by the alleged actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a nonapplicant author submitting a letter declaring the author’s inventorship); In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976) (disclaiming declarations from patentees were directed at the generic invention and not at the claimed species, hence no need to consider derivation of the subject matter).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"cs_5u4nhe5x","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_5u4nhe5x","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (BPAI 1982)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"Ex parte Kroger","all_citations":["219 USPQ 370"],"court":"BPAI","decision_year":1982,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (BPAI 1982)"},{"id":"cs_4raqydxk","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4raqydxk","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356 (CCPA 1976)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Carreira","all_citations":["532 F.2d 1356","189 USPQ 461"],"court":"CCPA","decision_year":1976,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976)"},{"id":"pb_zm5s3nfb","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_zm5s3nfb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93858\">A successful <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b> affidavit or\n                           declaration establishing derivation by the author, patentee, or applicant of the\n                           published application of a first reference does not enable an applicant to step into the\n                           shoes of that author, patentee, or applicant of the published application in regard to\n                           its date of publication so as to defeat a later second reference. <i>In re\n                              Costello,</i> 717 F.2d 1346, 1350, 219 USPQ 389, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1983). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"A successful 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration establishing derivation by the author, patentee, or applicant of the published application of a first reference does not enable an applicant to step into the shoes of that author, patentee, or applicant of the published application in regard to its date of publication so as to defeat a later second reference. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1350, 219 USPQ 389, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1983).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93858","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"cs_s2iww47p","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_s2iww47p","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"case","short_name":"In re Costello","all_citations":["717 F.2d 1346","219 USPQ 389"],"court":"Fed. Cir.","decision_year":1983,"holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null,"canonical_citation":"In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"},{"id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_nrnn3v6m","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d\">Affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications\n                           subject to <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35\n                                 U.S.C. 102</a></b> are affidavits or declarations under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b>\n                           because these are not otherwise provided for in the rules of practice. The Office will\n                           treat affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to the current\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52\">35 U.S.C.\n                                 102</a></b> as affidavits or declarations under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323465\">37 CFR 1.130</a></b>, and\n                           affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n                                 102</a></b> as affidavits or declarations under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b>,\n                           regardless of whether the affidavit or declaration is designated as an affidavit or\n                           declaration under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323465\">37\n                                 CFR 1.130</a></b>, <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#aia_d0e323504\">1.131</a></b>, or <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR 1.132</a></b>.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 are affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 because these are not otherwise provided for in the rules of practice. The Office will treat affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130, and affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132, regardless of whether the affidavit or declaration is designated as an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131, or 37 CFR 1.132.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"pb_4jyw6hz2","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4jyw6hz2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>EXAMPLES</b>","rendered_text_plain":"EXAMPLES","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93797/b.0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"EXAMPLES"},{"id":"pb_p4uao2cu","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_p4uao2cu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93871\">The following examples demonstrate the application of an attribution\n                           affidavit or declaration.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"The following examples demonstrate the application of an attribution affidavit or declaration.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93871","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"we_wkbiqcnz","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/we_wkbiqcnz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<div class=\"Example\" id=\"d0e93874\"><b>Example 1</b><p id=\"d0e93878\">During the search the examiner finds a reference fully describing\n                              the claimed invention. The authorship or inventive entity of the reference is the\n                              same as the inventive entity of the application and the reference was published or\n                              patented less than one year prior to the filing date of the application. The\n                              reference cannot be used against applicant because it does not satisfy the 1-year\n                              time requirement of <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)</a></b>.\n                           </p>\n</div>","rendered_text_plain":"Example 1During the search the examiner finds a reference fully describing the claimed invention. The authorship or inventive entity of the reference is the same as the inventive entity of the application and the reference was published or patented less than one year prior to the filing date of the application. The reference cannot be used against applicant because it does not satisfy the 1-year time requirement of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93874","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"worked_example","example_number":1,"example_type":"other","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"st_jftolmqq","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_jftolmqq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"statute","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["b"],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)"},{"id":"we_oopjidgv","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/we_oopjidgv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<div class=\"Example\" id=\"d0e93884\"><b>Example 2</b><p id=\"d0e93888\">Same facts as above, but the authorship or inventive entity of the\n                              reference is different from the inventive entity of the application. Because the\n                              inventive entities are different, the reference is prior art under\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA\n                                    35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e)</a></b>.\n                           </p>\n</div>","rendered_text_plain":"Example 2Same facts as above, but the authorship or inventive entity of the reference is different from the inventive entity of the application. Because the inventive entities are different, the reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e).","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93884","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"worked_example","example_number":2,"example_type":"other","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"pb_7jhfesw3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_7jhfesw3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e93894\">In the situation described in Example 2, an affidavit under\n                           <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552\">37 CFR\n                                 1.132</a></b> may be submitted to show that the relevant portions of\n                           the reference originated with or were obtained from the inventor or at least one\n                           joint inventor named in the application undergoing examination. Thus the affidavit\n                           attempts to convert the fact situation from that described in Example 2 to the\n                           situation described in Example 1.\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In the situation described in Example 2, an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 may be submitted to show that the relevant portions of the reference originated with or were obtained from the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the application undergoing examination. Thus the affidavit attempts to convert the fact situation from that described in Example 2 to the situation described in Example 1.","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93894","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"prose_block","kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_ztb4getl"},{"id":"se_sutrnipd","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_sutrnipd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-602","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_602","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_602","section_number":"602","chapter":"600","depth":0,"title":"Section 602","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_szfxrrd4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_szfxrrd4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-1206","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1206","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1206","section_number":"1206","chapter":"1200","depth":0,"title":"Section 1206","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_bjpfwes4","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_bjpfwes4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-1211","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1211","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1211","section_number":"1211","chapter":"1200","depth":0,"title":"Section 1211","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_eicr43bc","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_eicr43bc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-1302","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1302","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1302","section_number":"1302","chapter":"1300","depth":0,"title":"Section 1302","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_otfadauj","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_otfadauj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2145","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2145","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2145","section_number":"2145","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2145","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_ez6cj4x3","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_ez6cj4x3","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2107","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2107","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2107","section_number":"2107","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2107","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_p3nuj52u","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_p3nuj52u","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2164","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2164","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2164","section_number":"2164","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2164","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_jr6kyidg","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_jr6kyidg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2159","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2159","section_number":"2159","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2159","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_hjaxhupa","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_hjaxhupa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-717","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_717","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_717","section_number":"717","chapter":"700","depth":0,"title":"Section 717","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_qaiqif23","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_qaiqif23","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2310","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2310","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2310","section_number":"2310","chapter":"2300","depth":0,"title":"Section 2310","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_wwpc24fx","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_wwpc24fx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-715","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_715","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_715","section_number":"715","chapter":"700","depth":0,"title":"Section 715","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_mseizpuw","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_mseizpuw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2153","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2153","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2153","section_number":"2153","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2153","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_t2mbugfh","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_t2mbugfh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"stub-2154","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"},"node_type":"section","akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2154","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2154","section_number":"2154","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2154","children_ids":[]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_bs7myefl","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_krvknyau","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":122,"end":134}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92100","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_e4e373m7","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_mjvjrhhj","target_id":"st_3zuoaecd","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.68","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1d667_2f1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rljwcn6g","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_mjvjrhhj","target_id":"st_xfagkvpn","properties":{"citation_text":"18 U.S.C. 1001","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":226,"end":240}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1d667_2f1","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_uqssyho5","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ojackjdq","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":127,"end":139}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92109","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ur6citmx","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_lyd4s3y4","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.65","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.65","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ciyhfsvf","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_gx24c6m6","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_wdr5fcw5","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_4rsaa3j5","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66.01","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.01","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cix5bjmt","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_ueso4qfl","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66.02","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.02","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7vcorme4","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_pdfadkps","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66.03","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.03","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_wynlzwza","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_mh4dvnqk","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66.04","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.04","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_grp2rdmt","edge_type":"appears-in","source_id":"fp_uf42va3o","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"insertion_anchor":"fp7.66.05","hosting_chapter":"700"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"fp7.66.05","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mrr36far","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_u77z3amc","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":154,"end":166}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92473","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jjdnpr66","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"li_bjn7vpv4","target_id":"cs_swkigvao","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":111,"end":126}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f0d_2a2","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_6526n7nb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_2fguzmrk","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":44,"end":56}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jxdjcdux","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_uuuzg6jy","target_id":"st_asst5tgs","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.116(e)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":224,"end":239}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92507","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7bg2npvx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_k7r6udvw","target_id":"st_brdknkho","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.114","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":206,"end":218}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92517","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_nbblvgtx","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_k7r6udvw","target_id":"st_bmsdnayr","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.53(d)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":336,"end":350}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92517","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_txfj2ugp","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_2fguzmrk","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":171,"end":183}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vtgcxqvo","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"li_2fguzmrk","target_id":"st_pq32va5i","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 41.33(d)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":208,"end":223}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ieoogcni","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_q4fikdzq","properties":{"citation_text":"Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":386,"end":420}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7yl5g5pf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_mebii6tt","properties":{"citation_text":"Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (SCOTUS 1966)","source_offset":{"start":826,"end":850}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_m6a6fnbc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_sfg3cia5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":885,"end":897}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vsqhbl7w","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_pwsgtfc2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":940,"end":953}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_n5n5y62l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_tkh4hwy7","properties":{"citation_text":"Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (SCOTUS 1976)","source_offset":{"start":1134,"end":1152}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rrkyoi3c","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_5qute4ul","properties":{"citation_text":"Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (SCOTUS 1969)","source_offset":{"start":1191,"end":1241}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zzcdxhic","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_vmvttieg","properties":{"citation_text":"A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 87 USPQ 303 (SCOTUS 1950)","source_offset":{"start":1308,"end":1340}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_p322rb3a","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"cs_uxodantb","properties":{"citation_text":"Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (SCOTUS 1976)","source_offset":{"start":1380,"end":1396}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_azlbsowo","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_4k672xcs","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":316,"end":329}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92574","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2abap7kq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_24gsvfl3","target_id":"cs_njlf7bvk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":187,"end":201}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92611","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5ulsbqfg","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_24gsvfl3","target_id":"cs_g7forrpf","properties":{"citation_text":"Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":338,"end":370}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92611","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_izgxo7vs","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_e5idhjkd","target_id":"cs_65r47k4h","properties":{"citation_text":"United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (SCOTUS 1966)","source_offset":{"start":293,"end":315}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92638","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mjb2fanj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hir7ehr2","target_id":"cs_2pzju7gn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":350,"end":404}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92644","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_w3hvkrho","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hir7ehr2","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":744,"end":792}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92644","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_hjvibcu5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hir7ehr2","target_id":"cs_uway6wrl","properties":{"citation_text":"Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 2023 USPQ2d 667 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":880,"end":906}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92644","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_qs5clevw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4bbfzzyt","target_id":"cs_hzsfutue","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":147,"end":158}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c87_258","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2pe5aa53","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4bbfzzyt","target_id":"cs_jhecabc5","properties":{"citation_text":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019)","source_offset":{"start":433,"end":463}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c87_258","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_4ah5ci63","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4bbfzzyt","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":780,"end":828}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c87_258","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xnlb7bhi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_nwsngfnc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":343,"end":354}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3cr34xkh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_t6sarnoj","properties":{"citation_text":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":424,"end":475}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_c2civ4ne","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_w5a4mgyw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","source_offset":{"start":1040,"end":1049}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7awxfcmt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_tcocrd42","properties":{"citation_text":"WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 119 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":1364,"end":1387}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rkcspidf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_3f3vwjdd","properties":{"citation_text":"Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 813 Fed. Appx. 539, 2020 USPQ2d 10546 (Fed. Cir. 2020)","source_offset":{"start":1924,"end":1954}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cmwrtk54","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_ziyvsiyv","properties":{"citation_text":"Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 2021 USPQ2d 875 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","source_offset":{"start":2312,"end":2349}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vnc3zsws","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"cs_emuxz7ho","properties":{"citation_text":"Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 2021 USPQ2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","source_offset":{"start":2839,"end":2881}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xht2vfs2","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_77p57ylc","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":2568,"end":2581}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35cf2_18c8a_1b7","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ac7rbaxd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","target_id":"cs_od4ngaid","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","source_offset":{"start":190,"end":199}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_i3jrdzuq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","target_id":"cs_5besighe","properties":{"citation_text":"Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)","source_offset":{"start":248,"end":283}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ua7vkma7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","target_id":"cs_ngjc63gw","properties":{"citation_text":"Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","source_offset":{"start":405,"end":437}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2aviimmh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","target_id":"cs_pajbqpus","properties":{"citation_text":"KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (SCOTUS 2007)","source_offset":{"start":847,"end":877}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_empvhtjk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kxhy3d4o","target_id":"cs_23uomlcx","properties":{"citation_text":"Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016)","source_offset":{"start":908,"end":950}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2c1f4_2a1e2_1db","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_slxxkzwv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hesgmmgl","target_id":"cs_cnxbx676","properties":{"citation_text":"In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":445,"end":460}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92674","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pih4jprr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hesgmmgl","target_id":"cs_l2b7tnna","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":921,"end":934}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92674","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_a6fdigns","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hesgmmgl","target_id":"cs_cvddyhgc","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (BPAI 1991)","source_offset":{"start":986,"end":1001}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92674","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_uqjocx44","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lhatsjh6","target_id":"cs_xqzhovub","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":86,"end":99}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92693","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_am2a3d3k","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lhatsjh6","target_id":"cs_cnxbx676","properties":{"citation_text":"In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":154,"end":169}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92693","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jfkfocjl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b4y3mxpt","target_id":"cs_5tlu77vh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962)","source_offset":{"start":324,"end":339}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92712","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pgl4pkiz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_b4y3mxpt","target_id":"cs_sd65k7yi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":615,"end":628}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92712","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_57konfdz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_b4y3mxpt","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":442,"end":455}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92712","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ecmeob7z","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_b4y3mxpt","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":571,"end":584}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92712","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rrd6eak3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_2pzju7gn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":300,"end":354}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_eunrvuzk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_n6rmsq6e","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":446,"end":459}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zdz2vh32","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_nlahuooq","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989)","source_offset":{"start":637,"end":650}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_22pbnzyk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_pzxkczmk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":990,"end":1003}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rimdg3at","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_wp77iofo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":1220,"end":1233}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pzj5e5k2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omr5owc7","target_id":"cs_cvddyhgc","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (BPAI 1991)","source_offset":{"start":1474,"end":1489}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92727","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_sufdppof","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4osnlxlu","target_id":"cs_jb35ept7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":229,"end":247}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92754","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_h7kho35u","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7ek5gotv","target_id":"cs_l7tehmc5","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (BPAI 1982)","source_offset":{"start":182,"end":196}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92760","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mfptnxoq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_7ek5gotv","target_id":"cs_gkvrzlan","properties":{"citation_text":"In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953)","source_offset":{"start":228,"end":241}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92760","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_nthx36kf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tpj7wp6n","target_id":"cs_5tpdt5t6","properties":{"citation_text":"Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Lab., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 128 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2018)","source_offset":{"start":943,"end":989}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_2e698_20b33_fd","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7gcurdvd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_mvrv2wl5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":358,"end":371}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_iboe2ilc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_e7tbx4k4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":540,"end":551}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5fml3sts","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_a6b57hmc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":771,"end":786}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_klbksppe","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_4opqd42k","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":1086,"end":1100}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_43wdi4qo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_rwxjx62w","properties":{"citation_text":"Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":1436,"end":1466}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_dpuauoz6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_llnvoaaj","properties":{"citation_text":"Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","source_offset":{"start":1560,"end":1601}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_4q5pvnfo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hzdyojwr","target_id":"cs_4opqd42k","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":1899,"end":1913}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92780","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mutvzayg","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_n7llghh2","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":324,"end":372}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92822","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3sllf7gs","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_n7llghh2","target_id":"cs_t6sarnoj","properties":{"citation_text":"Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 81 F.4th 1202, 2023 USPQ2d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":659,"end":710}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92822","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_kcthz26m","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yquk6p6d","target_id":"cs_xijfw2yp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":228,"end":245}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_wse34m2w","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yquk6p6d","target_id":"cs_pxrn2ayt","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 182 USPQ 290 (CCPA 1974)","source_offset":{"start":416,"end":430}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5lsztomm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yquk6p6d","target_id":"cs_kfcmromi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 152 USPQ 552 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":784,"end":796}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_o3r224v5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yquk6p6d","target_id":"cs_oldfxfzn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":963,"end":978}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_w7du7lbf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yquk6p6d","target_id":"cs_yzrdqgzv","properties":{"citation_text":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":1224,"end":1259}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92848","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_r2idbkcd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2pkkvclc","target_id":"cs_h2upjupc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":135,"end":148}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92878","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_27fmdxuf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2pkkvclc","target_id":"cs_t2rcekex","properties":{"citation_text":"Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":614,"end":660}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92878","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_e6de726b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2pkkvclc","target_id":"cs_b2dzdyv6","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (BPAI 1991)","source_offset":{"start":1124,"end":1151}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92878","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ymxa7bwk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hor2vxwl","target_id":"cs_e7tbx4k4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":390,"end":401}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92906","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rvpphoyp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_hor2vxwl","target_id":"cs_xtgzvqii","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (BPAI 1990)","source_offset":{"start":844,"end":854}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92906","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pi7avylk","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_hor2vxwl","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":694,"end":707}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92906","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_azgivlaj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tojg4r7n","target_id":"cs_x7n237wg","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":85,"end":98}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92934","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_tbsxxs3g","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tojg4r7n","target_id":"cs_jdpwti3q","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (BPAI 1961)","source_offset":{"start":350,"end":364}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92934","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_scpgbdnq","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tojg4r7n","target_id":"cs_o7p3hldo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":805,"end":816}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92934","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_hkur73dp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yq6glmxx","target_id":"cs_qgrfcils","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (BPAI 1985)","source_offset":{"start":152,"end":179}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92956","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ntsslor6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_yq6glmxx","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":493,"end":506}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92956","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jwodt2z5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jrxmntj4","target_id":"cs_oldfxfzn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":165,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_itcxtrvm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jrxmntj4","target_id":"cs_c6gmeurx","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":469,"end":479}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_etxcv2og","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jrxmntj4","target_id":"cs_6ats7zlo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 193 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":775,"end":786}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rc63cnze","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jrxmntj4","target_id":"cs_a6b57hmc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":843,"end":858}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ed3zvwsa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_r5ec4zuh","target_id":"cs_cqup2b5z","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621 (BPAI 1992)","source_offset":{"start":118,"end":135}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93006","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jqaq6mmf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nwc2tyms","target_id":"cs_a25dppqm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":192,"end":204}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_otbq3n5y","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nwc2tyms","target_id":"cs_uuvnwxws","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 182 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1974)","source_offset":{"start":285,"end":298}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2noa33wa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nwc2tyms","target_id":"cs_ehtsthay","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":355,"end":367}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_53jkwian","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_fuhi3olo","target_id":"cs_5aam7fby","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 202 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":271,"end":286}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93040","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_4yrvqhm7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ipu4d2gz","target_id":"cs_y4drnvwo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":176,"end":185}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93064","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cojffo5o","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_iclyhcn7","target_id":"cs_6ats7zlo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 193 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1977)","source_offset":{"start":240,"end":251}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93076","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_steaiigr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_iclyhcn7","target_id":"cs_a6b57hmc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":1029,"end":1044}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93076","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ejnogneo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_bsgzyugv","target_id":"cs_d35q2kc4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":148,"end":161}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93098","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_l7h44vqs","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_bsgzyugv","target_id":"cs_6bb2lopn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (BPAI 1989)","source_offset":{"start":399,"end":413}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93098","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_fbjvrk24","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gqnntz4x","target_id":"cs_qkmulq5e","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":379,"end":392}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93115","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_dpbhi3jd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gqnntz4x","target_id":"cs_pvsgssmh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","source_offset":{"start":1067,"end":1081}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93115","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_y53mwwzj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_gqnntz4x","target_id":"cs_c7byyf7l","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":1307,"end":1322}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93115","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_23yrlao3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_bt6ypqop","target_id":"cs_7hanz5mq","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":308,"end":321}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93143","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2ernrnqd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_bt6ypqop","target_id":"cs_l2b7tnna","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972)","source_offset":{"start":1561,"end":1574}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93143","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mjq7cog6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jchvg7cx","target_id":"cs_x7fgt73n","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":197,"end":207}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93165","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ba2rwxg6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zaeq473n","target_id":"cs_6afjbamd","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":174,"end":187}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xdjpood7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zaeq473n","target_id":"cs_c7bifajh","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":515,"end":529}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3ilunpqf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zaeq473n","target_id":"cs_vdtveosk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949)","source_offset":{"start":715,"end":727}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mkxvgzsh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zaeq473n","target_id":"cs_3gm5a2vt","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960)","source_offset":{"start":872,"end":887}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_t5smhxd7","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zaeq473n","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":34,"end":46}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93175","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zdump22z","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2ab6b2es","target_id":"cs_iyhoosqo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978)","source_offset":{"start":154,"end":168}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93206","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_svofumgy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2ab6b2es","target_id":"cs_5jf4m7fp","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (BPAI 1961)","source_offset":{"start":210,"end":225}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93206","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xoxssdes","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ht4sahsc","target_id":"cs_fkiuw4hi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 223 USPQ 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":308,"end":321}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93225","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_naadqmvw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ht4sahsc","target_id":"cs_o7p3hldo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979)","source_offset":{"start":1220,"end":1231}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93225","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xe55et4b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_y3wlj6dr","target_id":"cs_kydgc5ug","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 2 USPQ2d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":220,"end":232}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93253","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_o5qkijr4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_y3wlj6dr","target_id":"cs_l42zqjan","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966)","source_offset":{"start":512,"end":525}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93253","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_bjwz2fzu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_y3wlj6dr","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":732,"end":745}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93253","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_nci6pavl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h2zorr2y","target_id":"cs_en23vo64","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":302,"end":311}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93275","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_gxdjr6j3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h2zorr2y","target_id":"cs_zzardn4v","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964)","source_offset":{"start":1221,"end":1233}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93275","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_smynb6ue","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h2zorr2y","target_id":"cs_sb4qjun3","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103 (BPAI 1981)","source_offset":{"start":1475,"end":1492}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93275","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_qokiw5xo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_sxbvmsvs","target_id":"cs_pmgemwva","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 170 USPQ 213 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":155,"end":169}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93290","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5jlykexg","edge_type":"quotes-from","source_id":"nq_7yf2vd6q","target_id":"cs_nwsngfnc","properties":{"quoted_text":"In the ex parte process of examining a patent application, however, the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant’s assertion that the sale constitute commercial success. C.f. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990)(evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.","quoted_text_sha256":"c1c5163558c59644dceeacf3136e0c12cdb6ea314088aa93249af01bc502c010","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":565}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93330","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vapa3jab","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ha3vpvhl","target_id":"cs_nwsngfnc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93346","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3lw5zcfd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ha3vpvhl","target_id":"cs_5xb574lk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995)","source_offset":{"start":83,"end":93}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93346","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_75f23dst","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ha3vpvhl","target_id":"cs_53kh6kxy","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":154,"end":167}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93346","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_d44mozxf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ha3vpvhl","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":312,"end":325}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93346","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_stgiyt23","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_p4zk7ayr","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":226,"end":274}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93360","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jo5bztms","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yxkh2mge","target_id":"cs_e7bh5jkv","properties":{"citation_text":"Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":114,"end":176}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93373","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7kaxqsr4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jsu6z3rp","target_id":"cs_rcskmd6f","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":113,"end":125}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93398","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_psb5gfwl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jsu6z3rp","target_id":"cs_4gln2fqp","properties":{"citation_text":"Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990)","source_offset":{"start":498,"end":530}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93398","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xvhe7uta","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_pbrq6hev","target_id":"cs_axngs2fo","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (BPAI 1988)","source_offset":{"start":511,"end":528}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93415","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_wjvpaxll","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3whj57pm","target_id":"cs_dohigkzk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238, 117 USPQ 182 (CCPA 1958)","source_offset":{"start":558,"end":577}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93428","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_k36rpqrc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3whj57pm","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":638,"end":686}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93428","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_skjawfma","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_edbvch5b","target_id":"cs_dz5di7e6","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380, 176 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":491,"end":503}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93452","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_sq6nrjea","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_edbvch5b","target_id":"cs_lfkqfk5r","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":673,"end":686}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93452","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xfbp6l54","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_edbvch5b","target_id":"cs_mhr7y75h","properties":{"citation_text":"UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)","source_offset":{"start":737,"end":772}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93452","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_fslonsir","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vhso6du4","target_id":"cs_nwsngfnc","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996)","source_offset":{"start":236,"end":247}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93461","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_xtrpvv36","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vhso6du4","target_id":"cs_2lwsydyk","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (BPAI 1990)","source_offset":{"start":575,"end":590}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93461","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5e5vpitk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vhso6du4","target_id":"cs_v6m5gbay","properties":{"citation_text":"Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":655,"end":703}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93461","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_wkhzgtce","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i525djle","target_id":"cs_rt62l7fw","properties":{"citation_text":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":47}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93476","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_hnxpihe6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i525djle","target_id":"cs_ta3livkp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":247,"end":260}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93476","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cghn4jdi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i525djle","target_id":"cs_36feydyl","properties":{"citation_text":"EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":534,"end":571}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93476","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ov2qjw45","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i525djle","target_id":"cs_ksjkxlua","properties":{"citation_text":"Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986)","source_offset":{"start":930,"end":975}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93476","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_dppttrrm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kyjtedmr","target_id":"cs_apbsxgc3","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":362,"end":394}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93498","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_uwrrdvbv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kyjtedmr","target_id":"cs_bgnxd2a5","properties":{"citation_text":"Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 117 USPQ2d 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2015)","source_offset":{"start":451,"end":479}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93498","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_dwepfgnt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_kuk7ta5h","target_id":"cs_fyo4rnml","properties":{"citation_text":"Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":294,"end":333}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93514","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_okhn4euj","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v3wlupz7","target_id":"cs_ctbmepbr","properties":{"citation_text":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":87,"end":133}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93527","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ves5px2l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v3wlupz7","target_id":"cs_xxkyu7nt","properties":{"citation_text":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","source_offset":{"start":211,"end":257}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93527","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_m77ezq72","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_v3wlupz7","target_id":"cs_axngs2fo","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (BPAI 1988)","source_offset":{"start":430,"end":447}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93527","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_y6aafp2i","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2jtvvhu","target_id":"cs_d35q2kc4","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":371,"end":384}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93551","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_yrqifoin","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2jtvvhu","target_id":"cs_sc6gmadp","properties":{"citation_text":"Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":861,"end":926}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93551","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_gvf65jjw","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lagv2uf3","target_id":"cs_5ms4imng","properties":{"citation_text":"Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":105,"end":140}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93560","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ncn45onf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xrkymhag","target_id":"cs_72sbojcr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":62,"end":76}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93566","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rfh5lbxm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_vjm6ufgk","target_id":"cs_vq5cwdzh","properties":{"citation_text":"Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993)","source_offset":{"start":204,"end":248}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93579","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_4iybrxdp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_lgmhevan","target_id":"cs_7s6d54hl","properties":{"citation_text":"Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st Cir. 1977)","source_offset":{"start":194,"end":243}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93592","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2do4stmh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ph57clix","target_id":"cs_ybz4gfad","properties":{"citation_text":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":61}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93598","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vjm23hkn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ph57clix","target_id":"cs_vqzbvb4g","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":290,"end":302}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93598","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_r4vye6sn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_w4o6s7rw","target_id":"cs_ybz4gfad","properties":{"citation_text":"Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":84,"end":136}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93614","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_r2lkfpzo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_w4o6s7rw","target_id":"cs_65r47k4h","properties":{"citation_text":"United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (SCOTUS 1966)","source_offset":{"start":200,"end":222}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93614","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_q7aoifjy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ysq3gpdy","target_id":"cs_5527m26t","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988)","source_offset":{"start":206,"end":228}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93623","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_paguyb77","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ysq3gpdy","target_id":"cs_7hxujx7v","properties":{"citation_text":"Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":276,"end":311}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93623","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ii2nhkau","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wknakoa6","target_id":"cs_2wedizgs","properties":{"citation_text":"Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":269,"end":310}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93639","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_d763eq3r","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wknakoa6","target_id":"cs_gyetgtdd","properties":{"citation_text":"Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010)","source_offset":{"start":532,"end":556}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93639","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rufbqciy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_grzexrtw","target_id":"cs_mjqk3454","properties":{"citation_text":"Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2019)","source_offset":{"start":156,"end":188}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1dca6_17","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_r2gpf2ue","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_grzexrtw","target_id":"cs_tvfuqaks","properties":{"citation_text":"Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987)","source_offset":{"start":698,"end":736}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1dca6_17","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_eqc6jzfn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_grzexrtw","target_id":"cs_yqziio5w","properties":{"citation_text":"Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":787,"end":830}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1dca6_17","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_q7fvv5hx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_goov2avj","target_id":"cs_ctbmepbr","properties":{"citation_text":"Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":250,"end":296}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_auysxoq2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_goov2avj","target_id":"cs_xxkyu7nt","properties":{"citation_text":"Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)","source_offset":{"start":374,"end":420}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ibjwmkxo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_goov2avj","target_id":"cs_rt62l7fw","properties":{"citation_text":"Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":664,"end":702}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2moi5f5j","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_goov2avj","target_id":"cs_klgihb6b","properties":{"citation_text":"Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984)","source_offset":{"start":758,"end":791}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1ddc1_347","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_nsdhgjuz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_mtgoom7z","target_id":"cs_k2xdtng4","properties":{"citation_text":"(Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935)","source_offset":{"start":121,"end":150}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93672","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_6gzez4ah","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_mtgoom7z","target_id":"cs_3l3runm2","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":432,"end":443}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93672","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mih2qikp","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_mtgoom7z","target_id":"st_pzza6zjm","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 282","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":38,"end":51}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93672","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_i5adunky","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_244jxuh3","target_id":"cs_pq4dgpma","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969)","source_offset":{"start":288,"end":299}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93684","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_lbouq7t3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_244jxuh3","target_id":"cs_2tq3ui37","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947)","source_offset":{"start":655,"end":669}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93684","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_syic3cl5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_244jxuh3","target_id":"cs_rky2q5qd","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950)","source_offset":{"start":710,"end":720}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93684","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_4y7edsrd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_nexxxsgv","target_id":"cs_bih7kjqe","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949)","source_offset":{"start":198,"end":212}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93696","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rw354frx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h7gfe46n","target_id":"cs_72tdkfwg","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946)","source_offset":{"start":204,"end":216}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93702","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rwaugosz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h7gfe46n","target_id":"cs_7vav5x45","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)","source_offset":{"start":265,"end":278}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93702","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_iivyqi5r","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wh4oyusr","target_id":"cs_wnbqpech","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1954)","source_offset":{"start":194,"end":203}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93711","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_iderofyc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_wh4oyusr","target_id":"cs_567wtuyr","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Yale, 434 F.2d 666, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":253,"end":263}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93711","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_kqseze4s","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_aa7srgeo","target_id":"st_keb5vdhh","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 101","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":185,"end":198}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93724","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zrxd2lsq","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_aa7srgeo","target_id":"st_keb5vdhh","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 101","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":367,"end":380}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93724","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ee6ewbk3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_f6ssncjk","target_id":"st_ii42pq7g","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":136,"end":152}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93746","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_r4ckfpwu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_f6ssncjk","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":164,"end":177}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93746","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_uksxsjgv","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3oepmli6","target_id":"cs_jb35ept7","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":309,"end":327}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vywp7tte","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3oepmli6","target_id":"cs_asgdrrvw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981)","source_offset":{"start":624,"end":637}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2tjysgkb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3oepmli6","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":451,"end":464}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_2isvr4rz","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3oepmli6","target_id":"st_ii42pq7g","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":904,"end":920}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_lzngk6hl","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_3oepmli6","target_id":"st_35hzro2v","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 112","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":932,"end":945}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93758","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_eam5nzmd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_k5nqdqds","target_id":"cs_pbmuzl7v","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","source_offset":{"start":207,"end":220}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93776","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zkfnpzml","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_k5nqdqds","target_id":"cs_ghvgqipi","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951)","source_offset":{"start":545,"end":556}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93776","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_o35hflzt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3uwj5x56","target_id":"cs_ymwgzcto","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944)","source_offset":{"start":148,"end":163}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93785","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cvad3pp5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_3uwj5x56","target_id":"cs_qxtemxch","properties":{"citation_text":"Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (BPAI 1983)","source_offset":{"start":212,"end":232}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93785","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ke3xmauh","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"st_eiprdrak","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(g)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":189,"end":205}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mh5xu6k2","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"st_qlhihx44","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 100","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":211,"end":224}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_w22xxyv3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"st_bllk6i34","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.130","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":269,"end":281}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ba42si6e","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"cs_6h6k77by","properties":{"citation_text":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","source_offset":{"start":1459,"end":1514}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ij5xoq5e","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"cs_czwd5nbm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)","source_offset":{"start":1137,"end":1149}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_hgqpw3sf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":237,"end":250}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_njaoo5hb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":679,"end":695}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cirbhydc","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"st_6fovhoei","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.131(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":761,"end":776}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zbzbwc6w","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":858,"end":870}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3v3lit7m","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":905,"end":917}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pxzgkiwb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":1862,"end":1874}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_kekmoir3","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_r6jomfuk","target_id":"st_6fovhoei","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.131(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":44,"end":59}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_17223_d0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_w3hx7uld","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_r6jomfuk","target_id":"st_3x52cslb","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 41.203(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":251,"end":267}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_17223_d0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pq6trbcm","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_hcgm45yx","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":36,"end":49}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rhmxjs2e","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_iawg3hsy","target_id":"st_f5oboo62","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":554,"end":570}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93816","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5jicjkc6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tju4rtiy","target_id":"cs_v2dbagsv","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)","source_offset":{"start":703,"end":713}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93828","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_exm7wkud","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tju4rtiy","target_id":"st_f5oboo62","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":143,"end":159}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93828","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_gtifrkjd","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tju4rtiy","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":198,"end":214}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93828","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_yq4jdb3v","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_tju4rtiy","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":298,"end":310}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93828","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_5iqeqbut","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cl4ago3v","target_id":"cs_czwd5nbm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)","source_offset":{"start":212,"end":224}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3zcyxauo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cl4ago3v","target_id":"cs_6h6k77by","properties":{"citation_text":"EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017)","source_offset":{"start":544,"end":599}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_nsnpwjgk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cl4ago3v","target_id":"cs_5u4nhe5x","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (BPAI 1982)","source_offset":{"start":844,"end":859}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ct46fpzf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cl4ago3v","target_id":"cs_4raqydxk","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976)","source_offset":{"start":1124,"end":1138}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_la6w3kgp","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_cl4ago3v","target_id":"st_f5oboo62","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(f)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":917,"end":933}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93843","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mrgipfta","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_zm5s3nfb","target_id":"cs_s2iww47p","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983)","source_offset":{"start":362,"end":376}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93858","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ezbsizsv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_zm5s3nfb","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":13,"end":25}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93858","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ykjffjgv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":78,"end":91}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_kj3o3skn","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":129,"end":141}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_3ctq5p2s","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":317,"end":330}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_lp2lsi7q","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"st_bllk6i34","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.130","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":367,"end":379}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_gmy4ycb6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":463,"end":476}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_cyfwblmb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":513,"end":525}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7giaynkj","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"st_bllk6i34","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.130","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":629,"end":641}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_c4ry5xyv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_nrnn3v6m","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":653,"end":665}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_19db9_18d","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_utqihdni","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"we_wkbiqcnz","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":427,"end":443}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93874","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_gjwhaijy","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"we_oopjidgv","target_id":"st_chovvrcv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(a)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":232,"end":248}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93884","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_qsz6khws","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_7jhfesw3","target_id":"sb_cvzka7dc","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.132","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":60,"end":72}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93894","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_sb43cvca","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_krvknyau","target_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.01","target_anchor":"d0e92469","source_offset":{"start":445,"end":458}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92100","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_dq7womtm","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_vj4p5gjx","target_id":"se_sutrnipd","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 602","target_anchor":"d0e38244","source_offset":{"start":138,"end":148}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c40_1d611_1ea","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_lmxhelvi","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_2fguzmrk","target_id":"se_szfxrrd4","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 1206","target_anchor":"d0e123772","source_offset":{"start":228,"end":239}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_pbptfjzh","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_2fguzmrk","target_id":"se_bjpfwes4","properties":{"link_text":"§ 1211.03","target_anchor":"d0e128327","source_offset":{"start":244,"end":253}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24bf6_20f20_30","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_uw66me4y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"li_2imp3q7b","target_id":"se_eicr43bc","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 1302.14","target_anchor":"d0e132661","source_offset":{"start":533,"end":547}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_it_29b9a_224ec_4","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_i7d77l3j","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xwikjdo5","target_id":"se_otfadauj","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":15}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92699","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_kmdzojrl","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_n7llghh2","target_id":"se_xcnhwfh5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.01","target_anchor":"d0e92469","source_offset":{"start":460,"end":473}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92822","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_njhctdd7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_n7llghh2","target_id":"se_otfadauj","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":1356,"end":1367}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92822","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_zfyn446a","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_tojg4r7n","target_id":"se_otfadauj","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":927,"end":938}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92934","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_swnxr3cj","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_jrxmntj4","target_id":"se_ce4ck6iy","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.02(c)","target_anchor":"d0e93049","source_offset":{"start":922,"end":938}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e92976","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_tqglhpu7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_nwc2tyms","target_id":"se_sblaebq5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.02(d)","target_anchor":"d0e93107","source_offset":{"start":249,"end":265}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_knyekj4d","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_nwc2tyms","target_id":"se_45pl5i2q","properties":{"link_text":"§ 716.02(e)","target_anchor":"d0e93171","source_offset":{"start":268,"end":279}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93019","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ze3teu6r","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ipu4d2gz","target_id":"se_777z3ko5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.01(d)","target_anchor":"d0e92769","source_offset":{"start":872,"end":888}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93064","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_e7yw5nbk","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_sad2c6hj","target_id":"se_moosgfuu","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716","target_anchor":"d0e92085","source_offset":{"start":88,"end":98}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_p_35c41_257c3_31e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mejrm7l7","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_p4zk7ayr","target_id":"se_k7jmgjd5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 716.01(b)","target_anchor":"d0e92626","source_offset":{"start":327,"end":344}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93360","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_6rpqmvbw","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_p4zk7ayr","target_id":"se_otfadauj","properties":{"link_text":"2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":349,"end":353}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93360","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rfhor4pv","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_jsu6z3rp","target_id":"se_k7jmgjd5","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 716.01(b)","target_anchor":"d0e92626","source_offset":{"start":869,"end":886}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93398","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_mwohjqbh","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_jsu6z3rp","target_id":"se_otfadauj","properties":{"link_text":"2145","target_anchor":"d0e212553","source_offset":{"start":891,"end":895}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93398","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_x4gek7mg","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_aa7srgeo","target_id":"se_ez6cj4x3","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2107.02","target_anchor":"d0e199419","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":18}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93724","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_knx6sseb","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_f6ssncjk","target_id":"se_p3nuj52u","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2164","target_anchor":"d0e215224","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":15}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93746","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_ljzr6p3y","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"se_jr6kyidg","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2159","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20034_1dc34_1dd","source_offset":{"start":236,"end":247}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_h5ik3k7o","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"se_hjaxhupa","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 717","target_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_235c5_25d","source_offset":{"start":433,"end":443}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_rkwqznv2","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_76xf4vjc","target_id":"se_qaiqif23","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2310","target_anchor":"ch2300_d2988c_24ad0_c7","source_offset":{"start":601,"end":612}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d222fc_27e5b_2e","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_t7bnrojy","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_rjp6lvdk","target_id":"se_wwpc24fx","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 715","target_anchor":"d0e89737","source_offset":{"start":806,"end":816}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93801","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_jrocx5m2","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_r6jomfuk","target_id":"se_wwpc24fx","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 715.05","target_anchor":"d0e91264","source_offset":{"start":273,"end":286}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_17223_d0","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_vhdgm3ql","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_hcgm45yx","target_id":"se_hjaxhupa","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP §§ 717","target_anchor":"ch700_d1ffd2_235c5_25d","source_offset":{"start":55,"end":66}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_7le5joxp","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_hcgm45yx","target_id":"se_mseizpuw","properties":{"link_text":"2153","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_24b48_9c","source_offset":{"start":68,"end":72}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_p72goyz6","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_hcgm45yx","target_id":"se_t2mbugfh","properties":{"link_text":"2154","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_274f5_338","source_offset":{"start":77,"end":81}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"ch700_d24be8_1721b_305","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}},{"id":"e_n3wvlwvr","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_iawg3hsy","target_id":"se_wwpc24fx","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 715.01(c)","target_anchor":"d0e90779","source_offset":{"start":63,"end":79}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s716.html","source_anchor":"d0e93816","source_sha256":"fcb3f7434d0b1828219227d43933f4d8c62e7e187c7c5c27ef8b07d388d550c4"}}]}}