by Steve Driskill | Apr 16, 2013 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
“[A] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed … is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” Here, just because...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 22, 2013 | [sub] computerization, Obviousness
Routine modifications that are a part of adapting an existing system to the Internet do not render the adaptations nonobvious. (See also, Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010), holding the claimed system of...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 7, 2013 | [sub] operability, Obviousness
Physical combinability is not required for a finding of obviousness. It is true that the combination of teachings must be operable, but not that the physical combination of the particular devices in the references themselves must be operable. Typically, the better...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 27, 2012 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
This is the second case this month in which the court has taken a fairly expansive view of “teaching away.” Here, the mere fact that the reference taught a specific range for locating the tear line on a container and that range did not include the claimed location was...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 11, 2012 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference … would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). (Another good case pointed to by the...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 27, 2012 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
An obvious to try rationale is generally supported when there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Background / Facts: Inventio’s patent at issue was directed to an elevator “destination dispatching” system...
