直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Overcoming Obviousness Rejections by Attacking the Prima Facie Case

June 2020

Lexis Practice Advisor

By Thomas Lee Irving; Stacy Lewis*

This practice note teaches patent prosecutors how to overcome a patent examiner’s obviousness rejection by attacking the examiner’s prima facie case. Obviousness is one of the grounds for rejection of a patent application that is most frequently asserted by the U.S.  Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Accordingly, knowing how to attack the examiner’s prima facie case is an essential patent prosecution skill. If you successfully attack the prima facie case, rather than rebutting it, you may avoid amending the claims and the resultant possibility of prosecution history estoppel that may later limit your client’s ability to rely on the doctrine of equivalents to prove infringement of its patent. 

We discuss how to attack the prima facie case of obviousness in the context of the examination of patent application claims by a patent examiner. Note that the same principles apply in the context of inter partes patentability challenges before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), because the claims do not have a presumption of validity before the PTAB. However, in PTAB proceedings, the initial burden of persuasion is on the petitioner, the rebuttal burden is on the patent owner, and PTAB operates as an adjudicator of the parties’ arguments. 

Read the full article here.

Tags

Obviousness (35 USC § 103)

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Offices

Washington, DC

*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan


Originally printed in Lexis Practice Advisor in September 2019. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Conference

Best Practices and Tech in Intellectual Property Conference 2026

May 17, 2026

Tel Aviv

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP