Patent prosecutors are familiar with MPEP sections 2143.01 (V) and 2143.01(VI). \u00a0Those sections recite:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n2143.01 (V.) \u00a0\u00a0THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT RENDER THE PRIOR ART UNSATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
If proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed device was a blood filter assembly for use during medical procedures wherein both the inlet and outlet for the blood were located at the bottom end of the filter assembly, and wherein a gas vent was present at the top of the filter assembly. The prior art reference taught a liquid strainer for removing dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils wherein the inlet and outlet were at the top of the device, and\u00a0wherein a pet-cock (stopcock) was located at the bottom of the device for periodically removing the collected dirt and water. The reference further taught that the separation is assisted by gravity. The Board concluded the claims were prima facie obvious, reasoning that it would have been obvious to turn the reference device upside down. The court reversed, finding that if the prior art device was turned upside down it would be inoperable for its intended purpose because the gasoline to be filtered would be trapped at the top, the water and heavier oils sought to be separated would flow out of the outlet instead of the purified gasoline, and the screen would become clogged.).<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201cAlthough statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function.\u201d In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Court held that claimed catheter for removing obstruction in blood vessels would have been obvious in view of a first reference which taught all of the claimed elements except for a \u201cmeans for recovering fluid and debris\u201d in combination with a second reference describing a catheter including that means. The court agreed that the first reference, which stressed simplicity of structure and taught emulsification of the debris, did not teach away from the addition of a channel for the recovery of the debris.).<\/span><\/p>\n
2143.01 (VI.) \u00a0\u00a0THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF A REFERENCE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing. Patentee taught the device required rigidity for operation, whereas the claimed invention required resiliency. The court reversed the rejection holding the \u201csuggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.\u201d 270 F.2d at 813, 123 USPQ at 352.).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
Surprisingly, the issues of (1) whether a proposed combination of references renders one of the references inoperable for its intended purpose<\/em> and \u00a0(2) whether a proposed combination of references changes the principle of operation of a reference<\/em> don’t arise that often at oral argument at the Federal Circuit. \u00a0In the recent Rambus v. Rea<\/span> case, however, these issues were discussed. \u00a0You can listen to the discussion here: [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n
You can listen to the entire oral argument here: \u00a0[Oral Argument<\/a>].<\/p>\n