USPTO Update to Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness


n light of several decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued an update to the examination guidelines it had issued in 2007 following the KSR decision.

In the 2007 guidelines, the USPTO noted that support for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was not limited to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test. The guidelines identified several rationales provided by the Supreme Court that may be used to support a determination of obviousness.

The recent update provides additional guidance for examiners and practitioners to determine obviousness or non-obviousness through "teaching points" derived from several Federal Circuit decisions. The update groups the decisions according to obviousness concepts including combining prior art elements, substituting one known element for another, the obvious to try rationale, and consideration of evidence.

"Now that a body of post-KSR case law is available to guide office personnel and practitioners as to the boundaries between obviousness and nonobviousness, this update can be used to compare and contrast situations in which claimed subject matter was found to have been obvious with those cases in which it was determined not to have been obvious," said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. "This update will be helpful to USPTO patent examiners, inventors and the patent bar because it reviews several cases from the Federal Circuit that have involved the application of the law of obviousness since the KSR case was decided by the Supreme Court."

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Armstrong Teasdale LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Armstrong Teasdale LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.