Responding to 35 USC §103 Rejections

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2 1383 (2007)), responding to 35 USC §103 or obviousness-type rejections where the examiner has to combine one or more prior art references in order to reject all of the features of a claim have become much more challenging.  Prior to KSR the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1996), was applied to determine obviousness.  The prior art references were required to provide some teaching, suggestion or motivation to be properly combined to reject the features of a claim.  Accordingly, an argument could be made in responding to a 103 rejection that the prior art references could not be properly combined because there was no teaching, suggestion or motivation for their combination to provide the claimed invention.

After KSR, virtually any reasonable rationale for combining the prior art references by the examiner seems to be possible.  MPEP 2143 provides seven exemplary rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness and provides an extensive explanation of each of the rationales including examples.  MPEP 2143 states that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list and other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.  Accordingly, the reasons that an examiner can provide for combining prior art references for an obviousness rejections can be limitless.  Although, KSR requires that rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.

One approach for rebutting a 103 rejection includes providing evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others and unexpected results (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467).  While this approach may prove successful, being able to obtain evidence of such secondary considerations may prove difficult and the adequacy of such evidence if available must be carefully considered.  Affidavits including secondary considerations to overcome a 103 rejection are typically viewed as being self-serving and are subject to attack in litigation.

Another approach is to rebut the examiner’s rationale for combining the prior art references.  However as discussed above the rationales that an examiner can use to combine prior art references can extend beyond the exemplary rationales discussed in the MPEP.  Yet there may still be issues associated with the prior art references that can be used.  One argument for non-combinability is if one of the prior art references criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.01 I.).  Other arguments may involve the proposed modification formed by combining the prior art references rendering the prior art device or process unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2143.02 V.) or the proposed modification changes the principle of operation (MPEP 2143.02 VI.).  A caveat to physical combinability in MPEP 2145 provides that the test for obviousness is not whether the feature of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference but rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).

In conclusion, an argument that the prior art references cannot be properly combined is probably not going to be successful unless there is explicit teaching in one of the references that can be used as evidence that the references cannot be combined.  What the patent practitioner is typically left with, or along with the non-combinability argument, is treating the 103 rejection like a 102 rejection and finding at least one feature in the claimed invention that is not taught or suggested by any of the cited documents.

Charles Moore

About Charles Moore

A former engineer with more than 20 years experience in intellectual property law—including extensive in-house-counsel work—Chuck Moore brings proactive counseling and in-depth technical knowledge to his wide-ranging clients in a variety of matters and technologies. He boasts significant know-how with intellectual property issues relating to electronics, semi-conductors, integrated circuits and associated manufacturing apparatus and methods, computer hardware and software, telecommunications, Internet-related inventions, business methods and electromechanical systems and devices.


No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.


    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)