Under what circumstances can a rejection under 35 USC 102/103 be made?

A rejection under 35 USC 102/103 can occur under circumstances where the prior art fails to disclose an inherent characteristic that is present in the claim. This means that if the prior art does not explicitly describe a particular feature but that feature is considered inherent to the nature of the art, it can still support a rejection for lack of novelty or obviousness.

For instance, if an application claims a product that possesses a unique property that the prior art does not mention, but it is known in the field that all similar products have that property, a rejection could be justified under 35 USC 102 because the claim lacks novelty due to that characteristic being inherently present in the known art. This principle underscores the importance of not only what is explicitly stated in prior art but also the implications of what is inherently part of that art.

In contrast, the presence of identical prior art or overly broad claims may lead to rejections, but they do not specifically hinge on the concept of inherent characteristics as the correct answer does. Thus, by recognizing that inherent characteristics can lead to a finding that a claim is not novel, you understand how such circumstances could trigger a rejection under these sections of the patent law.