by Steve Driskill | Jun 8, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
A specification’s assertion of a possible synergistic effect, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results and overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the specification’s assertion that “[i]t is...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 4, 2015 | [sub] marking, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Physical space constraints are not dispositive of whether a patentee is required to mark its commercial article rather than its packaging. Here, for example, a traffic control system was found to be adequately marked by its packaging rather than its components even...
by Steve Driskill | May 26, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement
Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Here, for example, a major supplier of wireless access points and controllers was found to be subject to liability for providing infringement-inducing products to consumers...
by Steve Driskill | May 22, 2015 | [sub] computer-related, Subject Matter Eligibility
A tangible medium will not be read into claims that fail to recite or reference any such medium. Here, for example, a “universal speech-recognition interface” software application consisting of software instructions was found to not imply the existence of a machine...
by Steve Driskill | May 21, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Even an obvious solution does not render an invention obvious if the problem solved was previously unknown. Here, for example, even though the addition of the claimed “antioxidant” would have been an obvious solution for a formulation with known oxidation problems,...
