• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Responding to Office Actions / Prior art must disclose EVERY limitation for a proper anticipation rejection

Prior art must disclose EVERY limitation for a proper anticipation rejection

April 10, 2017 by James Yang

DisclosureFor an examiner to reject a claim based on anticipation, each and every limitation must be found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. An anticipation rejection is a rejection where the examiner is of the opinion that the claimed invention is not novel.  However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken a liberal approach to determine whether a particular limitation is found (i.e., disclosed) in the prior art reference. The USPTO would reject a claim based on anticipation even if the prior art reference did not disclose a particular limitation so long as that particular limitation was “immediately apparent” to one of ordinary skill in the art.  In other words, as long as a skilled artisan reading the reference would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement after reading the prior art reference. The Federal Circuit firmly rejected this standard applied by the USPTO in Nidec v. Zhongshan (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2017).

Nidec illustrates a case where the USPTO applied a loose standard as to when a prior art reference disclosed a claim limitation.  The USPTO applied the loose standard based on a prior case rendered by the Federal Circuit, namely, Kennametal.  The USPTO thought that the Kennametal case supported their findings and application of the holding in Kennametal.

The Federal Circuit rejected the USPTO’s application of the law and clarified the holding of Kennametal and how Kennametal does not support the loose standard that the USPTO has been applying.

In Nidec, the patent at issue disclosed a system for controlling the torque of an electromagnetic motor. In order to do so, three separate motor control values were outputted and applied to three-phase windings of the motor. The three motor control values could be expressed in relation to a stationary frame of reference or a rotating frame of reference. The parties agreed that the claimed invention required that the three motor control values must be expressed in relation to the rotating frame of reference.

The patent at issue was being examined by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO after the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. The petitioner was trying to invalidate the patent and submitted a prior art reference, namely, Kusaka which disclosed the claimed invention except that the three motor control values were stated in reference to the stationary frame of reference, not the rotating frame of reference.

The Board or PTAB held that anticipation can be found even with the prior art reference failing to disclose a claimed element so long as a skilled artisan reading the reference would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement.  The Board cited Kennametal for support for their position.

The Federal Circuit disagreed.

The Federal Circuit explained that Kennametal addresses whether disclosure of a limited number of combination possibilities discloses one of the possible combinations. In particular, in Kennametal, the challenged claim required a particular binding agent and a PVD coating to be used together. The prior art reference disclosed five binding agents, one of which was the claimed binding agent, and three coating techniques, one of which was PVD. The reference never disclosed the specific combination of a particular binding agent and a particular coding technique but it taught that any of the five binding agents could be used with any of the three coating techniques. The issue was whether the disclosure of 15 combinations of binding agents and coating techniques would be sufficient to find that the prior art reference “disclosed” the claimed combination of binding agent and coating technique. The Federal Circuit held that a limited number of combination possibilities could be said to disclose the claimed combination. Kennametal does not permit the USPTO to fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.

During prosecution, if the examiner has failed to provide a pinpoint citation as to where a particular claim limitation is found in the prior art, this case would be a good case to support the proposition that the examiner cannot fill in the missing limitations because of what he/she might think a skilled artisan might immediately envisage upon reading a prior art reference.  The prior art must disclose the specific claimed combination in order for the examiner to reject the claim based on anticipation.

However, it would be prudent to cite this case during prosecution only for the more important aspects of the invention and not for each and every instance where the examiner fails to provide a pinpoint citation to a particular reference.

On the one hand, this case is not significant because examiners may reject the claimed invention based on obviousness instead of anticipation. However, in my opinion, moving the rejection from anticipation to obviousness may be preferred because it may be easier to overcome an obviousness rejection based on the various arguments that can be presented. See MPEP 2100.  To overcome an anticipation rejection based on what a fictional skilled artisan might immediately envisage is tough.  The arguments would be directed as to what the skilled artisan might or might not envisage.  It would be a dispute between the examiner’s opinion and the inventor’s opinion.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

 

Related Articles for Responding to Office Actions

  • Responding to an office action
  • Overview of office actions
  • Prior art must disclose EVERY limitation for a proper anticipation rejection
  • Common sense used to evaluate obviousness with caveats
  • Teach away arguments to show non-obviousness
  • How to disqualify non-analogous references cited in an office action
  • Detailed explanation for motivation to combine required for obviousness
  • Teach away argument for patentability requires more than a preference away
  • Broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean broadest
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney