Free Seminar tomorrow on Obviousness in Overlapping Ranges
Date: March 17, 2005
Time: 12:30 PM Eastern
Duration: 1 Hour
Please RSVP to http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@aplf.org in order to obtain toll free dial in number
"Prima Facie Obviousness In Overlapping And Encompassing Range Cases"
The Patent Office states in Rule 1.56 that prima facie unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden of proof standard. Yet the patent office always holds (as a matter of law) that any claim to ranges which are encompassed, or overlapped, by the prior art are "prima facie obvious," regardless of the evidence. This imposes on the applicant the burden of proving "surprising and unexpected results," commensurate in scope with the claims, which in some arts can be very costly. This presentation explores the appropriateness of the PTO's "per se, matter of law" approach, in situations, for example, where the prior art suggests a very broad, with no support for a range of such breadth, no claims to that broad disclosed range, and no examples within the range claimed in the rejected claims.
Presenters:
James A Mitchell, [http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jmitchell@priceheneveld.com] from Price Heneveld Cooper DeWitt & Litton
Gunther Evanina, [http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gevanina@priceheneveld.com] from Price Heneveld Cooper DeWitt & Litton
Time: 12:30 PM Eastern
Duration: 1 Hour
Please RSVP to http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@aplf.org in order to obtain toll free dial in number
"Prima Facie Obviousness In Overlapping And Encompassing Range Cases"
The Patent Office states in Rule 1.56 that prima facie unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden of proof standard. Yet the patent office always holds (as a matter of law) that any claim to ranges which are encompassed, or overlapped, by the prior art are "prima facie obvious," regardless of the evidence. This imposes on the applicant the burden of proving "surprising and unexpected results," commensurate in scope with the claims, which in some arts can be very costly. This presentation explores the appropriateness of the PTO's "per se, matter of law" approach, in situations, for example, where the prior art suggests a very broad, with no support for a range of such breadth, no claims to that broad disclosed range, and no examples within the range claimed in the rejected claims.
Presenters:
James A Mitchell, [http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jmitchell@priceheneveld.com] from Price Heneveld Cooper DeWitt & Litton
Gunther Evanina, [http://us.f404.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gevanina@priceheneveld.com] from Price Heneveld Cooper DeWitt & Litton
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
© 2004-2007 William F. Heinze