This means that the claimed invention has already been disclosed by at least one prior art reference (which could be a previous patent, a previously filed patent application, or some other previous publication that taught the claimed invention). Obviously, a party is not allowed to obtain a patent for an invention that has already been discovered or disclosed by someone else -- this is barred by the "novelty" requirement of 35 U.S.C. 102. Thus, whenever you hear that a claim has been "anticipated," that means that the claim was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 for being non-novel.
If, by stark contrast, the claimed invention differed from the prior art, but the differences were of the sort that would occur to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that claim will instead be said to be "obvious." "Obvious" claims are invalid under the next statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. 103. Note that while a novelty rejection requires that all claim elements be disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, the patent office is allowed to use multiple prior art references in combination when making an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
If, by stark contrast, the claimed invention differed from the prior art, but the differences were of the sort that would occur to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that claim will instead be said to be "obvious." "Obvious" claims are invalid under the next statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. 103. Note that while a novelty rejection requires that all claim elements be disclosed within the four corners of a single prior art reference, the patent office is allowed to use multiple prior art references in combination when making an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
RSS Feed