IP Intelligence › Patent Criticalities › Everything is obvious once you know the answer
Patent criticality
Everything is obvious once you know the answer
How do I argue against an obviousness objection that combines two documents?
Once you have read the invention, the route to it looks inevitable. Combination objections often rely on that effect - so the reply has to force the analysis back to what the skilled person knew before your specification existed.
The three questions that expose hindsight
Why those two documents? Out of everything published, what would have led the skilled person to these particular ones - and to combine them rather than any other pair?
What was the motivation? The skilled person is solving a problem, not browsing. If neither document mentions the problem your invention solves, the motivation has to come from somewhere, and often the only place it comes from is your specification.
Does the combination actually work? Frequently the two documents are technically incompatible - different scales, different materials, different operating regimes - and combining them would break one of them. Say so, with reasons.
What strengthens the answer
Evidence that the field went in a different direction. Evidence of a long-standing problem that nobody solved. Evidence of commercial success attributable to the technical feature rather than to marketing. None is decisive on its own, and all are more credible when they existed before the objection.
Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act 1970.
Indian authority asks whether the discovery lies so much out of the track of what was known before as not to suggest itself naturally to a person thinking on the subject.
Answer the combination, not the individual documents. The objection is about the link.
Distinguishing each document separately and never addressing why they would not have been put together.
Objections where the second document comes from an unrelated field.
For the last obviousness objection you received, write one sentence explaining what would have led the skilled person to that second document.
Sources & further reading
- The Patents Act, 1970 (consolidated to 1 August 2024) — Official IP India text
Related
Person skilled in the art
A legal fiction: a competent practitioner in the relevant field who knows the common general knowledge and all the prior art, but has no inventive capacity of their …
New is the easy part. Inventive is the hard part.
Novelty is a single-document test and it is largely mechanical. Inventive step is a judgement about whether a competent, unimaginative person in your field would hav…
The case that still defines inventive step in India
Holding an examination report?
A reply is an argument, not a form. What you concede now shapes what your patent is worth later.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.