Patent bar Obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) question: examiner combines a laptop reference with a reference describing a spring latch

Patent barObviousness (35 U.S.C. 103)

An applicant claims a latch for a laptop lid that resists accidental opening. The examiner combines a laptop reference with a reference describing a spring latch on a kitchen cabinet door, which addresses the same problem of keeping a hinged lid closed against a light bump. The applicant argues the cabinet reference is non-analogous art. Under the MPEP, the cabinet reference is analogous if:

A it is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced
B the inventor actually knew of it before filing
C it comes from the same industry classification as the laptop
D it was cited by the applicant in an information disclosure statement
E it was published within one year before the effective filing date

Show the answer and explanation

Answer: A. it is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced

Answer: it is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced. A reference is analogous art if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or, if not, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (In re Bigio; In re Clay). A cabinet latch addressing the same problem of keeping a lid shut can be reasonably pertinent (MPEP 2141.01(a)). Why not the others: - Same industry classification: classification is not the test. - The inventor's actual knowledge: the hypothetical person of ordinary skill is presumed to know analogous art. - Cited in an IDS: citing a reference does not make it analogous. - Within one year: timing decides whether something is prior art at all, not whether it is analogous. Rule: Analogous art is from the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the inventor's problem. Source: MPEP § 2141.01(a) (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024); 35 U.S.C. 103; as at Oct 2026

Common mistake

Limiting analogous art to the applicant's own industry.

Practice more Patent bar Obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) questions

Exam-style questions with worked answers, then full timed mocks. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Study note: Obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103)Patent barpractice questions & mock exams

Related Patent bar practice questions

The primary reference teaches a pump that works only by drawing fluid with a reciprocating piston. To reach the claimed invention, the examiner proposes replacing the piston with a rotary vane, which would change the pump's basic principle of operation, relying on a second reference that teaches vane pumps generally. Which argument by the applicant is strongest?A claim recites an alloy containing 8-12% chromium. The prior art reference describes the same alloy containing 10-20% chromium for the same purpose. The applicant offers no evidence about the significance of the claimed range. How should the examiner treat the claim under 35 U.S.C. 103?A claim recites a mathematical formula for calculating the optimal cure time of rubber, and further recites constantly measuring mold temperature, recalculating the cure time with the formula, and automatically opening the press when the calculated time has elapsed. Under the USPTO's analysis, which conclusion is best supported?

Build a daily practice habit — a few exam-style questions a day, with worked answers. Free to start.

Start practicing →

Original study material written from the MPEP; not a question from the current exam.Independent. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO. Verify figures and rules against current guidance before relying on them.