Controlling Patent Prosecution History

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

6 Pages Posted: 20 Feb 2009 Last revised: 5 Dec 2014

Thomas G. Field Jr.

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

Date Written: February 20, 2009

Abstract

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.

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

JEL Classification: K10, K23

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

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
104
Rank
212,565
Abstract Views
909