by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
The teachings of a later prior art reference generally outweigh contradictory statements in an earlier prior art reference. Here, for example, although an earlier prior art reference clearly taught away from the claimed invention by stating that the claimed “5-MTHF”...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
It is generally obvious to treat a limited subset of patients with an otherwise known procedure when there are no unexpected results directly attributable to the patient subset itself. Here, for example, limiting the patient pool for a drug treating irritable bowel...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Motivation to combine two prior art references is not negated by a clash in inventive aspects that are inconsequential to the problem addressed by the proposed combination. Here, for example, differences in wire configurations (insulated vs. bare) was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 2, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Absent any unexpected advantages, a less-than-pure material in terms of the active component is an obvious variant of a corresponding pure material. Here, for example, the claimed “substantially pure” pharmaceutical compound that was 92–95% pure material was found to...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 19, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A naturally implemented solution to a known problem is likely obvious. Here, for example, a periodic fan cycle that starts with an ‘off’ period rather than an ‘on’ period following the deactivation of a main heating or cooling cycle was found to be “naturally...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 22, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
Merely espousing the benefits of its own invention over the state of the art is not sufficient for a prior art reference to teach away from combination with certain aspects of the state of the art. Here, for example, a short-tail mud motor with a vertically mounted...