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 | 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,...
by Steve Driskill | May 7, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
A claimed feature associated with mere regulatory compliance cannot be used to establish the secondary consideration of commercial success for the purposes of rebutting an otherwise prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the claimed “sterility” of a...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Combining prior art references for the purpose of establishing obviousness may be improper when there is substantial interplay among the claimed components. Here, for example, integrating a first reference’s microprocessor to control the camera of a second reference’s...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 10, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
In order for a prior art reference to teach away from the claimed invention, it must criticize or otherwise discourage use of the claimed invention rather than merely provide an alternative. Here, for example, a reference’s mere emphasis that the absence of due dates...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 27, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A reference’s specific contribution to the art beyond its more conventional features may be used to characterize its “principle of operation” in considering whether such functionality would be preserved by an otherwise obvious modification. Here, for example, a...
