i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 1 (1) Independent claim 1 is rejected allegly anticipated by prior art A......
..ok, straight forward 102 rejection
(2)a few dependent claims 4-6 are then being rejected for 103a obviousness
over prior art A + prior art B....ok
I am just gonna argue (for 103a rejections) that independent claim 1 is not
obviouse over the combination of A+B, therefore 4-6 are not obvious.
行八?
thanks |
f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 2 sounds like a somewhat common 103 rejection based on the specific
restrictions of your dependent claims. I assume that the two prior art A
are the same publication and you have another 103 rejection to your
independent claim in view of at least publication A? I think your strategy
should work. |
L**P
发帖数: 3792 | 3 行
但是最好再进一步argue你的dependent claims 4－6的limitations也unobvious
这样即使第一个arguement失败，claim 1不成，claims 4－6不至于立刻没戏
..
not
【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】
: (1) Independent claim 1 is rejected allegly anticipated by prior art A......
: ..ok, straight forward 102 rejection
: (2)a few dependent claims 4-6 are then being rejected for 103a obviousness
: over prior art A + prior art B....ok
: I am just gonna argue (for 103a rejections) that independent claim 1 is not
: obviouse over the combination of A+B, therefore 4-6 are not obvious.
: 行八?
: thanks
|
B*****t
发帖数: 3012 | 4 这不是很常见的情况吗
独权无新颖性
从权附加技术特征显而易见无创造性
你要是能把独权的创造性都争下来那不是连新颖性也没有问题了
anticipated but not obvious这是啥情况?
..
not
【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】
: (1) Independent claim 1 is rejected allegly anticipated by prior art A......
: ..ok, straight forward 102 rejection
: (2)a few dependent claims 4-6 are then being rejected for 103a obviousness
: over prior art A + prior art B....ok
: I am just gonna argue (for 103a rejections) that independent claim 1 is not
: obviouse over the combination of A+B, therefore 4-6 are not obvious.
: 行八?
: thanks
|
