While much attention in recent years has been placed on patent eligibility – and rightly so – the truth is obviousness remains the most important threshold for most innovations. Obviousness today is about predictability of results.
When the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR v. Teleflex things substantially changed. We used to be able to argue that any obviousness rejection was inappropriate where there was no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine references. Today, however, it is all too easy for examiners to subjectively and in a rather cavalier way conclude claims do not pass muster under one of the other so-called KSR Rationales. Indeed, what the MPEP instructs examiners to do is not in line with current Federal Circuit precedent, which can and does create problems both at the examination level and at the post-grant challenge level at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Join Gene Quinn, founder and president of IPWatchdog.com, for a free webinar discussion on responding to obviousness rejections and convincing examiners there is more to the claimed invention than the sum of its parts. Joining Gene will be John White, patent attorney and procedure expert.
In addition to answering as many questions as possible, this webinar will address:
- Specific requirements examiners must satisfy in order to rely on each of the KSR rationales;
- The most common obviousness rejections and how handle them; and
- Tips for successfully working with patent examiners to convince them to issue patent claims.