• Home
  • About Me
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent Prosecution Services
    • Patent Defense Services
    • Patent Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Search Services
    • Trademark Prosecution Services
    • Trademark Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Defense Services
    • Patent and Trademark Licensing Services
    • Worldwide Patent and Trademark Services
  • Learning Resources
    • 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
      • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
      • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
      • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
      • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
      • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
      • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
      • 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
      • Best uses for design patents
      • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
      • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
      • Benefits of Patent Protection
      • Continuation patent application and related divisional and continuation in part
      • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
    • 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 process
      • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
      • What is a patent search and How to do it?
      • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
      • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
      • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Comprehensive)
      • Benefits of a Patent Search
      • Overview of Patent Process
      • Patent process timeline and major milestones
      • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
      • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
      • USPTO Website
    • 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
    • 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
    • Patent infringement
      • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
      • What are the patent marking requirements and its benefits?
      • Avoiding Patent Infringement
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
    • 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

Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Responding to Office Actions / Teach away argument for patentability requires more than a preference away

Teach away argument for patentability requires more than a preference away

May 29, 2017 by James Yang

Meiresonne v. Google (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) stands for the proposition that a proper teach away argument to defeat of obviousness rejection requires a discussion in the prior art of more than just a preference away, disparagement or being critical of the combination suggested by the examiner to make the claimed invention. A proper teach away argument requires that the prior art advocated abandoning the route to the claimed invention.

The Meiresonne case may be useful in providing instructions on a proper teach away argument to overcome an obviousness rejection and to also help understand how a patent drafter might not want to a prepare patent application to make it harder for competitors to secure patents around the patent owner’s existing patent portfolio.

I.  Proper teach away argument

The Meiresonne case discussed the facts of the invention and how the prior art did not teach away from the combination suggested by the examiner. Also, the Meiresonne case was compared to a prior case wherein the Federal Circuit affirmed the teach away arguments presented by the patent owner.

A.  Prior art did not teach away from the suggested combination

The Meiresonne invention was directed to a search engine’s results page wherein a list of hyperlinks are provided to an Internet user. (see US Pat. No. 8,156,096).  The Internet user could hover over one of the hyperlinks in order to see a descriptive textual preview in a rollover window. Google filed an inter partes review action to invalidate the Meiresonne patent based on two prior art references whose combination disclosed all the elements of the Meiresonne’s claimed invention. The parties agreed that the first prior art reference teaches links and text descriptions and the second prior art reference teaches links in a rollover viewing area.

The patent owner characterize the prior art references as disparaging and criticizing the use of descriptive text in previews and a preference for graphical previews.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the prior art references and found that the prior art references taught graphical previews but did not advocate abandoning textual descriptions completely or that one can only either use graphical previews or descriptive textual based previews in a mutually exclusive way. Rather, the prior art references described the graphical previews as something to make web browsing easier and more useful. Although the prior art references may imply that descriptive textual previews may be unreliable, misleading, wrong or inaccurate, the prior art references did not recommend discarding textual based descriptions completely. The prior art references never advocated abandoning text wholesale but merely encouraged supplementing the text by visiting the website itself.

For these reasons, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board that the prior art references did not teach away from the suggested combination of the claimed invention.

B.  Instant case compared to DePuy Spine

In DePuy Spine, the prior art taught that the addition of a rigid screwed to the prior art spinal assembly would’ve eliminated or reduced the devices desired “shock absorber” effect, thereby rendering the device inoperative for its intended purpose. The prior art expressed a concern for failure of the assembly and stated that the shock absorber effect decreased the chance of failure of the screw or the bone screw interface. The prior art also depicted a causal relationship between the rigidity and screw failure which supported the finding that it taught away from using rigid screws.

The Federal Circuit discussed DePuy Spine and compared the facts of that case with the instant case to draw contrast between what is a proper teach away argument to what is an improper teach way argument. In DePuy Spine, the language used to describe what the prior art taught was tantamount to a complete failure. The court utilized terms such as inoperative, failure and causal relationship. The teaching of the prior art, to be tantamount to a teach way argument would preferably rise to this level of characterization of how the prior art taught away from the claimed invention. The prior art would preferably not merely suggest away but firmly teach away from the claimed invention.

II.  Patent drafting insight

In drafting a patent application for an invention, the patent drafter may disparage the prior art in an attempt to draw a clear contrast with the prior art techniques versus the invention being described in the patent application. However, by disparaging the prior art in such a complete and total way, competitors may be able to utilize the disparaging language in the prior art in order to convince the examiner that the competitor’s invention is non-obvious and thus patentable.

The default route for a vast majority of patent applications is that the patent applications are held in secrecy for the first 18 months after the filing of the patent application with the USPTO. However, many patent applications are published even if they do not mature into an issued patent. As such, the information that one puts into a patent application becomes prior art to later filed patent applications. If the first filed patent application contained a discussion disparaging the prior art technique or combination in such a complete and total way that the applicant of the later filed patent application could argue that their invention is non-obvious based on disparaging comments made in the first filed patent application, then in this regard, such strong disparagement of the prior art technique a combination is in a way helping competitors by giving them potential teach away arguments.

The goal in patent drafting would be to help draw a clear distinction between the prior art and the invention and also to not help competitors in securing patents on their own inventions but to generate a border around your own invention so that others could not secure patent protection for invention similar to but different from your own invention. When drawing the clear distinction between the prior art and the instant invention, one may want to consider not completely disparaging the prior art but to merely describe it as being not preferred or to show how the prior art technique may not be as useful. In other words don’t use such strong language so as to completely disparage the prior art. In this way, the patent application may be characterized as drawing a distinction between the prior art technique and the present invention and not allowing competitors to utilize any distinctions made in the patent application to their benefit in arguing that the disparagement discussion included in the patent application teaches away from the claimed combination suggested by the competitor.

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

Filed Under: Office Action, Responding to Office Actions Tagged With: Teach Away

Author: James Yang

Helping entrepreneurs and mid-size businesses since 2004. Call me at (949) 433-0900 to schedule your free initial consultation. Read More…

Covid-19

Covid-19: We are fully operational.  Due to Covid-19, all meetings are conducted via zoom.

Professional Profile

James Yang Business Patent Attorney

James Yang, Patent Attorney

James Yang is a patent attorney whose practice encompasses all area of intellectual law including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Professional Profile

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?

New Book Release

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

Peer Recognition

top attorney patent application
client choice patent application
Rated by Super Lawyers
AV Preeminent rating

RECEIVE PATENT UPDATES

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

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

  • Patent Prosecution Services
    Patent Defense Services
    Trademark Prosecution Services
    See All Services

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

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

© 2021 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney