You’ve built something new. Maybe it’s a smarter way to process data, a clever algorithm, a unique machine learning model, or even just a better tool to solve a problem others gave up on. You know it works. You know it’s different. But how do you protect it?
What is “Teaching Away” and Why Should You Care?
Turning a “No One Would Do That” Into “No One Did Do That”
Imagine someone told you that nobody in their right mind would build software the way you did.
That your approach goes against common thinking. That it’s “non-obvious” because, honestly, it sounds like a bad idea.
That might sound like criticism.
But in the patent world? That’s gold.
Because when everyone else is going one way, and your invention goes the other—and it actually works—you’re in a very strong position.
That’s what “Teaching Away” means. It’s a way to show that other experts or published materials (called “prior art”) actually discouraged or avoided doing what you did. They taught people to stay away from your approach.
And you did it anyway. Not because you were wrong, but because you saw something they didn’t.
And that’s what makes your invention patentable.
The Real Reason Patents Get Denied Under Section 103
Section 103 says an invention can’t get a patent if it’s “obvious.” But obvious to who?
To a “person having ordinary skill in the art.” That means someone who knows the field—an engineer, a researcher, a builder—just like you.
So if the patent examiner finds other documents, patents, or articles that together could have led that person to your invention, they can reject your patent under 103.
But if those documents teach away from your approach—if they say “don’t do it this way” or “this won’t work”—you have an edge.
Because if it was really obvious, why would everyone be saying not to do it?
That’s the crack in the door. That’s where you push back.
How to Spot “Teaching Away” in the Wild
Here’s where it gets tactical.
You need to look closely at the prior art cited against your patent. Don’t just read the title. Read the language. Look for phrases like:
- “This approach has serious drawbacks”
- “Prior solutions failed when they tried…”
- “This method is inefficient or not practical”
- “This combination introduces instability or complexity”
These are red flags—in a good way. They show that others thought your method wouldn’t work or wasn’t worth trying.
Now flip it. You made it work. You proved them wrong. And that’s the heart of your argument.
Why This Works in Real Patent Strategy
At PowerPatent, we see this all the time with deep tech startups.
One team built a new way to run real-time anomaly detection on edge devices.
Everyone else said it couldn’t be done without draining power or needing constant cloud sync. The prior art was full of reasons to avoid it.
But they pulled it off.
And when we showed that those earlier documents were teaching away, the examiner backed off.
The invention wasn’t obvious. It was bold. It was unexpected. It worked. And it got patented.
You can do the same.
The trick is knowing where to look, how to explain it, and how to package that proof into your patent application from the start.
That’s what the 103 Evidence Pack is for. And we’ll walk you through how to build it in just a bit.
But first—let’s look at the second major way to beat a 103 rejection…
What Are “Unexpected Results”?
Why Surprising Outcomes Are Your Strategic Advantage
Unexpected results aren’t just nice-to-have surprises.
They’re signals. In patent law, they signal to the examiner that your invention is doing something beyond what the experts would have predicted.
But for your business, they also signal something else: that you may have hit on a competitive edge that’s not only protectable—but also hard to copy.
Think of unexpected results as both a legal shield and a business moat. They make it harder for competitors to dismiss your invention as “just another improvement.”
When documented and framed properly, they become a unique story only your team can tell—and more importantly, defend.
You didn’t just build something better. You built something that surprised even you. That’s where the value lies.
How to Recognize an Unexpected Result in Your Own Work
Most teams overlook their own unexpected results because they’re so focused on solving problems.
You find a better method, it works, and you move on. But slow down for a second. Ask yourself: did we think this would happen?
Did others say this wouldn’t work? Were we aiming for A but got B, and B turned out even better?
That’s where you start.
Look for moments where your own internal expectations were low—but the real-world outcomes were high.
These are the gaps you can exploit not just in your product, but in your patent strategy.
Start writing these down. Not formally. Just in a founder’s notebook. Those “wait, what?” moments that happened during a sprint.
The build that shouldn’t have worked but did. The latency drop that exceeded predictions. These are the building blocks of your unexpected results narrative.
Turning Test Data Into Strategic Proof
One of the most powerful things you can do is keep a simple before-and-after comparison log.
If you’re trying a new model architecture, save the performance metrics from both the baseline and the updated version.
If your new system reduced memory usage unexpectedly, document the previous usage too.
Don’t just record the success. Record what the industry standard or previous version looked like.
This contrast is key to showing the result was not expected.
Even better: record what you thought would happen. If you assumed a 3% improvement and got 15%, make a note of it.
That kind of delta tells a story. It tells the examiner that even the inventors didn’t see this coming, which makes it harder to argue that someone else would have.
This isn’t about fluffing up your filing. It’s about showing that your invention behaved in a way that defied normal thinking.
And in the world of patent law, that is exactly what defeats a 103 rejection.
Framing the Result for the Patent Office
It’s not enough to say, “We got a better result.”
You need to frame why the result was not just better, but surprising based on what was known at the time.
Here’s the strategy: tie the unexpected result directly to the feature or change you introduced. Then contrast that with what prior art would have predicted.
Say you changed the way a neural network routes signals.
You expected it to slightly reduce training time. Instead, it made the model more explainable in addition to being faster.
That’s not only unexpected—it’s a different class of benefit. That’s strong evidence of non-obviousness.
Now, imagine you already have performance benchmarks, internal memos, or early testing logs that show your assumptions.
When packaged in your 103 Evidence Pack, this becomes a highly credible narrative.
Examiners respond well to this because it’s specific, data-driven, and grounded in real development work—not speculation.
Building a Repeatable Process for Capturing These Wins
The smartest teams systematize this. They make unexpected results part of their product review process.
Not because it’s required for patents, but because it’s smart business.
Make this part of your retros. Ask: did anything work better than we predicted? Did any feature or fix deliver results that surprised us? Did users react in ways we didn’t anticipate?
If the answer is yes, that’s not just a product insight—it’s IP potential.
You can take it further. Create a simple folder where these unexpected outcomes live. Tag the version, the metric, the impact.
Over time, this becomes a living archive of invention moments. And when you’re ready to file, it becomes your fast-track to patentable stories.
When you work with PowerPatent, we help you surface and frame these insights properly.
We help you spot the difference between a performance win and a patent-worthy result.
And we show you how to build a 103 Evidence Pack that highlights your most defensible breakthroughs.
Your job is to keep innovating. Our job is to help you protect it—without slowing down your momentum.
If you’re ready to see how easy and strategic the process can be, take a look at how PowerPatent works:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Building Your 103 Evidence Pack
Why You Need More Than Just a Great Idea
Here’s the truth: great ideas don’t get patents.
What gets patents is evidence—evidence that your invention isn’t obvious. That it breaks away from the norm.
That it delivers something better. Evidence that proves the story behind your invention is real and worth protecting.
Most founders miss this. They submit a technical explanation, a few diagrams, and cross their fingers.
But that’s not enough when the examiner says, “This seems obvious.”
That’s where your 103 Evidence Pack comes in.
Think of it like a defense kit. A bundle of proof that tells the full story: what others were doing, why they avoided your path, and how your results beat expectations.
This isn’t legal fluff. It’s real, practical stuff that you already have—or can easily create.
And it can make the difference between a rejected patent and a granted one.
The Core Ingredients: What You’ll Actually Need
You don’t need fancy legal documents. You don’t need a huge technical paper.
You just need the right pieces, framed the right way. Here’s how we help founders pull it together at PowerPatent.
Start with the prior art. What were others doing before you? What did their patents, papers, or docs say?
More importantly, what did they not do? What did they warn against? This is where you spot the “Teaching Away.”
Now bring in your proof. This is where you show what you did differently—and how it worked. Think performance tests. Charts. Graphs. Comparisons.
Even short summaries from internal Slack chats can help if they show unexpected wins or breakthroughs.
Tie the two together. Connect the dots for the examiner. “They said don’t do X. We did X. It worked better than expected. Here’s the proof.”
That’s your pack. Short, clear, powerful.
And when you hand it off to the patent office—whether in the original filing or in response to a rejection—it sends a message: this isn’t just another idea. This is real innovation, backed by evidence.
Real-World Example: Making the Evidence Work
Let’s say you built a novel way to cool high-performance chips using a software-controlled airflow system.
Older documents all assume this can only be done with hardware components. They don’t even mention software control—they teach away from it.
You come in with your invention, and it works. Better thermal control, less noise, smarter feedback loop.
You gather your evidence: screenshots from your dashboard, thermal test logs, side-by-side benchmarks.
You include quotes from the older docs that dismissed software control as “too unstable” or “inefficient.”
Now you have a full 103 Evidence Pack. And when the examiner says, “This feels like just a tweak,” you show them it’s not.
It’s a leap forward. And it gets patented.
We help founders do this every week. It works because it tells a human story—backed by numbers.
This is what most startups miss when filing patents the old-school way. But with PowerPatent, this kind of argument is baked right into the process.
It’s how we help you protect what you’re building—without slowing you down.
If you’re working on something right now that deserves a patent, see how we can help:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
What Examiners Actually Look For
Understanding the Real Role of a Patent Examiner
Examiners aren’t there to make your life hard. They’re not trying to stop innovation.
Their job is to protect the integrity of the patent system by making sure only truly novel and non-obvious inventions get through.
But here’s what most founders don’t realize: examiners are looking for signals. Not marketing hype.
Not vague claims. Clear, technical signals that tell them your invention doesn’t fall into the “obvious” bucket.
When they read your application, they’re asking a specific set of questions. Would someone in the field have reasonably come up with this?
Do the combined teachings of existing references lead directly to this idea?
And if not, is there a strong reason—like teaching away or unexpected results—that explains why your invention stands apart?
If you understand that mindset, you can work with it, not against it. You’re no longer guessing what to include.
You’re anticipating what matters. That’s where real strategy starts.
How to Speak the Examiner’s Language—Without Speaking Legalese
You don’t need to be fluent in legal terminology to make your case land.
But you do need to present your story in a way that fits the examiner’s decision-making process.
That means clarity over complexity. Logic over buzzwords. Specificity over generalizations.
The examiner wants to see how your invention fits into the existing body of knowledge. So show them exactly where the break happens.
Point to where the field was heading and explain how you took a different path.
Support that with proof—technical details, performance metrics, even user feedback that validates the outcome.
The more you can guide the examiner through your thinking, the easier it is for them to justify a decision in your favor.
They’re not looking to argue. They’re looking for reasons to say yes. Make their job easier, and your chances go up.
The Silent Test Every Application Has to Pass
There’s an unspoken question that every examiner asks themselves: does this application feel like a real advancement?
They may not phrase it that way, but it’s at the core of how they evaluate your claims.
They want to know whether you’re just combining existing ideas in a slightly more efficient way—or if you’ve actually stepped outside what others were doing and made something different.
That’s why evidence matters so much. Not just technical drawings or feature descriptions, but the “why” behind the design.
Why did you try this method? Why did others not? Why does this outcome matter in a way that wasn’t expected?
If your application answers those questions without making them dig for it, you’ve already passed a major threshold.
How to Preempt Their Questions Before They Ask Them
This is where the best patent strategies really shine. You don’t wait for a rejection to figure out your story.
You build it into the application from day one.
Think about your invention from the examiner’s point of view. Ask yourself: if someone put two or three prior inventions together, could they arrive at mine?
And if so, what would make that hard? What would stop them? What would tell them not to try?
Now go further. Ask: if they did try to copy it, would it actually work the same way? Or is there something deeper, maybe an insight or technical leap, that only you saw?
Then capture that. Write it down. Document it clearly. This becomes the core of your 103 Evidence Pack.
And it turns your filing into something much more than a list of features.
It becomes a strategic argument that anticipates and answers the examiner’s hardest questions before they’re ever raised.
We’ve seen this shift turn borderline cases into granted patents time and time again. It’s not luck. It’s framing.
And the earlier you do it, the better the results.
At PowerPatent, we help you map this logic out from the beginning.
You bring the tech. We help turn it into an examiner-proof filing. Want to see what that looks like in action? Take a look:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Start Early, Win Sooner
Early Isn’t Just Better—It’s Smarter
Speed is everything in a startup. But when it comes to IP, speed doesn’t just mean moving fast—it means moving intentionally.
The moment your team starts testing something new, experimenting with architecture, or uncovering results that outperform expectations, you’re in patent territory.
And the earlier you recognize that, the more control you have.
Starting early gives you options.
It gives you time to document properly, to capture the data when it’s clean and unfiltered, and to shape your patent strategy while the invention is still fresh.
But more importantly, it gives you leverage. You’re no longer reacting to what’s already been published or launched—you’re setting the pace.
When you delay, you invite complexity. You create room for other teams to publish something similar.
You increase the risk of your own public disclosures counting against you. And you force yourself into a defensive posture rather than building a proactive IP foundation.
How to Build a Patent-Minded Culture Without Slowing Down
You don’t need to slow your engineering team down to build smart patent habits.
You just need to install a simple awareness loop into your product and engineering process.
If your team already runs weekly standups, sprint planning, or retros, that’s the perfect place to insert one key question: did we do anything that was unexpected, unusually effective, or structurally different this week?
When engineers start hearing that question regularly, they begin to think differently. Not in a legalistic way, but in a pattern recognition way.
They become more aware of when they’re diverging from industry norms. They begin to note when they hit unexpected results.
And when they do, they can flag it, even in a quick Slack thread or shared doc.
This shift in awareness is all it takes to begin building a patent-ready culture. It’s not about creating paperwork.
It’s about paying attention to the moments that matter—and having a lightweight system to capture them before they disappear.
You can even dedicate one team member or founder to act as the IP point person.
Not a legal expert—just someone who monitors when those moments happen, collects short descriptions, saves benchmarks, and works with your patent partner to turn them into real filings later.
This single change can prevent months of rework, misfilings, or worse—losing the ability to protect what you’ve built.
The Strategic Advantage of Provisional Applications
One of the most powerful tools for starting early is the provisional patent application.
It’s fast, inexpensive, and gives you a full year to refine, test, and improve your invention before locking in the full patent filing.
But here’s where most founders go wrong: they treat provisionals like placeholders instead of strategic weapons.
A strong provisional application doesn’t just hold your place in line. It tells a clear story.
It captures your early teaching-away arguments, your initial unexpected results, and your technical differentiators while they’re still raw. This becomes your evidence anchor.
And as your product evolves, you can update, expand, and strengthen the final non-provisional application—without losing your original filing date.
The key is to treat that early filing as the first version of your 103 Evidence Pack. You don’t need perfection. But you do need intention.
Capture the story while it’s happening, not in hindsight.
At PowerPatent, we help founders take advantage of provisionals the right way.
We give you a way to lock in your invention early without interrupting your roadmap.
And when it’s time to convert that into a full filing, the foundation is already there.
If you’re building something right now and wondering when to start thinking about protection, the answer is simple: start before someone else does. We’ll show you how:
https://powerpatent.com/how-it-works
Wrapping It Up
You’re not just building features. You’re solving problems in ways nobody else has. You’re making bets that others thought were too risky. And sometimes, those bets pay off in ways no one saw coming.
That’s where your edge lives. That’s what makes your invention worth protecting.
Leave a Reply