Join us for a discussion of the differences between US obviousness and the EPO's inventive step test, with an emphasis on the software, electronics, and mechanical arts. We will focus on worked examples, highlighting the different approaches adopted by the USPTO and the EPO, as opposed to focusing exclusively on case law. We will provide practical tips that can be used to navigate the different challenges encountered prosecuting applications in each jurisdiction.

Topics to be discussed include:

  • The state of art relied upon by the USPTO and the EPO
  • Challenging the USPTO's prima facie case of obviousness vs. positively arguing the inventive step using the EPO's problem-solution framework
  • Differentiating features that matter: technical vs. nontechnical features in a claim and their role in non-obviousness/inventive step arguments
  • Drafting the description: describing the invention to support the EPO's technical effect requirement

This is the third of the five-part Finnegan European Prosecution Webinar series.

Scheduling Conflict? Finnegan records all hosted webinars. To view the recorded program, simply register for the webinar and you will receive an access link shortly after the live program is complete.


Luigi Distefano
Yelena Morozova
Sarah Rodriguez

Wednesday, 17 November

15:00-16:30 GMT
16:00-17:30 CET
10:00-11:30 a.m. EST

*Note, these are personal RSVP links. If you would like to invite others or send someone in your place, please click here to register someone else.