How is a 103 rejection connected to a 102 rejection?

A 103 rejection is closely connected to a 102 rejection because it evaluates the obviousness of an invention in light of prior art. Specifically, a 103 rejection is based on the existence of one or more prior references that disclose aspects of the claimed invention. Moreover, it involves a step beyond merely identifying prior art, which is the foundation of a 102 rejection that addresses novelty.

In the context of a 103 rejection, if a claimed invention is found to be obvious based on prior art, this typically implies that there is prior art in existence that impacts the invention’s patentability. To apply a 103 rejection, there must first be an understanding of what has already been disclosed in prior art, making a 102 rejection—the determination of whether the claim is novel—implicitly necessary to establish the groundwork for the obviousness discussion.

Thus, a 103 rejection cannot stand without reference to a 102 rejection, since any claim rejected under 103 must be situated against the knowledge of what prior art exists, which is initially assessed through a 102 analysis. This foundational relationship allows examiners to effectively argue that even if a claim is novel (passing a 102 examination), it may still be deemed obvious when considering the collective teachings of the prior art