USPTO publishes post-KSR obviousness examination guidelinesOctober 10, 2007

The USPTO guidelines for obviousness rejections post-KSR appear in today's Federal Register. The full guidelines can be found here, and are similar to the draft guidelines that surfaced some time ago. In a nutshell, examiners will officially have seven rationales upon which an obviousness rejection may rely:

  1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
  2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
  3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
  4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
  5. ‘‘Obvious to try’’—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
  6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
  7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.

The full document goes into more detail regarding each of these rationales.

Update (1:30 PM): The USPTO has issued a press release regarding the guidelines.

← Return to Filewrapper

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up