Footnotes (40)



Controlling Patent Prosecution History

Thomas G. Field Jr.

University of New Hampshire School of Law (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center)

February 20, 2009

Pierce Law Review, Vol. 8, p. 228, 2010

This comment considers the importance of building prosecution records adequate to rebut arguments that may later be advanced by infringers to invalidate patent claims for obviousness. This is difficult when patentees face prior art that, for whatever reason, was unlikely to have been discovered, much less distinguished, during prosecution. Unless challenges can be rebutted with evidence of unexpected results developed during prosecution, allegalions of unexpected results may be rejected as in the classic Graham case.

Yet the recent KSR case demonstrates that it may be nearly as difficult to distinguish art readily available to both applicants and examiners but not considered during prosecution.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 6

Keywords: Prosecution history, obviousness, unexpected results, examiner competence

JEL Classification: K10, K23

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: February 20, 2009 ; Last revised: December 5, 2014

Suggested Citation

Field, Thomas G., Controlling Patent Prosecution History (February 20, 2009). Pierce Law Review, Vol. 8, p. 228, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1347107

Contact Information

Thomas G. Field Jr. (Contact Author)
University of New Hampshire School of Law (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center) ( email )
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
United States
HOME PAGE: http://https://law.unh.edu/faculty/field
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 907
Downloads: 103
Download Rank: 207,929
Footnotes:  40
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper