Patents & Trademarks Questions for 103
 |
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Any downside to using CREATE 103(c) (common ownership) to overcome 103(a) rejection rather than overcoming the rejection based on arguments? from a litigation standpoint? Also, if I do use t... Read More  Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
In a non-final office action, the examiner cites one reference in a 103 rejection and uses "common knowledge" to supply a missing element/limitation. The element is an integrated spring for b... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Quick ?, I have a rejection under 102(a) based on reference X and a 103(a) rejection based on reference Y in view of X. I know I can get over the 102(a) rejection by directing the Examiner to the... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
The CIP was filed over one year after publication of the commonly owned parent. Every claim in the CIP contains new matter. My understanding is that all the claims in the CIP are given their actu... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Hello, I found a document on the USPTO website that offers some guidance for claims rejections and rebuttals. In that document: "In considering evidence of nonobviousness, it is wel... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Hello, I have an independent claim that was rejected under 103 as unpatentable over a single reference. I'm amending that claim to narrow it. In the remarks argument of the amendment, should I ... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
I have a question regarding 102 e,f,g and 103c disqualification. If a prior art is rejected under 102b and 103a, could I still disqualify the prior art under 103 c exception, since the art also qualifies und... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Regarding a Utility patent (process) After reading through this (section 103) does anyone know a little more definitively, as to what they talking about is it the concept or the process, What I me... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
So I received a 103 rejection based on a combination of references that would be obvious based on their teachings, References A & B and A & C. A is a publication written by two of 5 inven... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
br> I have filed an application on 12/13/2004. the examiner rejected my application according to the 35USC103(a) according to two references. first reference is publishe... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
i have looked through some case's filewrappers, and found that a major of the applicant use the "all limitation" rule to overcome the 103 rejection. and i want to know that the claim is non-obvi... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
If I filed my patent in 12/2003 and the examiner cites references of 9/2002 and 9/1/20001 in a 103, can I swear behind one of them, or even both? In 103, it is the filing date, publishing date or ... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
I have a 103 rejection. I would like to submit a 132 declaration to show that the reference was derived from inventors of this application and is not an invention "by another". Facts:<... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
I have this 103 rejection, where in my previous response I said a POSITA would not be motivated to make Applicant's invention because a, b, c, and e. The Examiner writes back and says that "it is... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
I am reviewing the prosecution history of a patent. The examiner made an obviousness rejection, stating that a couple items would be obvious in the art, in addition to a double patenting rejection. &nb... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 2/26/2009
Hello, I'm trying to rebut a 103(a) rejection on a dependent claim. The indepdent claim it depends on was rejected on a single reference, ref. A, 103 argument (sort of reasonable, I guess), and I have... Read More Answer |
|
In Patent Process - updated on 12/26/2011
The Examiner has extracted physical elements from three references to build a 103(a) rejection of my simple mechanical device. Element A is identical to my corresponding element in physical shape and functi... Read More Answer |
|
|
- Patent Express is the fastest and easiest way for an individual inventor to file a U.S. Patent or Trademark Application.
- Patent Express fills the gap for those who cannot afford a U.S. patent attorney or agent, but want to have their patent drafted and issued.
- Patent Express is backed by a 100% money back guarantee.
|