The question is often asked: Hey, can I get a patent if I am mixing together known materials?
The answer is typically "no", unless there are unexpected results. What are "unexpected results"?
From the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP):
716.02(a) Evidence Must Show Unexpected Result
I. GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
“A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent
to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re
Corkill, 711 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.).
II.SUPERIORITY OF A PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCE OF
NONOBVIOUSNESS
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).
III.PRESENCE OF AN UNEXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF
NONOBVIOUSNESS
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.
IV.ABSENCE OF AN EXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF
NONOBVIOUSNESS
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.).
No comments:
Post a Comment