Master Graham v. John Deere factual inquiries, KSR International seven exemplary rationales, analogous art tests, and MPEP § 2145 rebuttal arguments.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
ℹ️ AI-generated, model-checked practice question citing MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 (Nov 2024). Each question is checked against MPEP source text by AI; always verify via the cited section.
You’ve completed the 5-question taster — sign up free to unlock 50 practice questions, or upgrade to the Hero Pass (350 questions — $49 regular, Launch 50% off: $24.50) or Master Bank (886 MPEP-cited practice questions — $89 regular, Launch 50% off: $44.50) for instant 6-month access to all 886 MPEP-cited practice questions, weak-area analytics, and 3-hour/6-hour Prometric exam simulations.
Help us keep our MPEP Ninth Edition, Rev. 01.2024 bank accurate. Select why you are flagging this question:
On the USPTO Patent Bar Exam, 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness questions center on MPEP §§ 2141–2145. You must know the four Graham v. John Deere factual inquiries: (1) scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations such as commercial success, long-felt unresolved need, failure of others, and unexpected results).
Examiners frequently test the two-prong test for analogous art (MPEP § 2141.01(a)): a reference is analogous prior art only if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor as the inventor’s invention, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. If a reference fails both prongs, it cannot be combined in a 103 rejection.
Finally, MPEP § 2145 (Arguments That Are Not Persuasive) is a favorite source of exam distractors: arguing that references cannot be physically combined, attacking references individually where the rejection relies on a combination, or alleging that a reference teaches away merely because it prefers an alternative embodiment are all unpersuasive as a matter of law.
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 measures obviousness "before the effective filing date of the claimed invention," whereas Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) measured obviousness "at the time the invention was made." In addition, under AIA, the common-ownership exception for 102(a)(2) prior art resides in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) rather than Pre-AIA 103(c).
No. Under MPEP § 2145 (Subsection III), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Always. Under MPEP § 2145 and § 716.02(d), objective evidence of unexpected results or commercial success must be commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claim; showing unexpected results for a single species rarely rebuts obviousness for a broad genus claim.
Read the complete statutory breakdown, exam tables, and worked MPEP rules for 35 U.S.C. 103 Obviousness.