The question is in context of a response attempting to overcome the examiner's cited prior art in a rejection. If stating that the prior art in question doesn't exactly address the point being used for rejection, is there a distinction between saying

"the xxxx art does not teach..."


"the xxxx art does not teach or disclose..." ?


the basic difference between the both lies between content of prior art

Eg. you have developed a product consisting of 1. aaa 2. bbb 3. ccc 4. ddd

Scenario 1: In the above example the prior art has aaa, bbb, ccc but not ddd then

the prior art XXXX doesn't teach or disclose the use of ddd

Scenario 2: In the above example the prior art has of aaa, bbb, ccc and ddd,But in the prior art the compound is used for a different purpose than that of your intention.( eg: in prior art the compound ddd is disclosed as lubricant but in your invention you are using it as a solvent)

the prior art XXXX doesn't teach the use of ddd as an solvent.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.