by Steve Driskill | Dec 11, 2013 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
“A teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other compositions,” as required for a showing that a given reference teaches away from the invention claimed. Background / Facts: The...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 30, 2013 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Citing KSR, the court reminds us here of the importance of recognizing the role of common knowledge and common sense in determining obviousness. In particular, a claimed invention that merely conforms to industry standards is likely to be found obvious as being...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 30, 2013 | [sub] motivation, Anticipation, Obviousness
When a claim recites a limitation that captures a range of values, it is anticipated if a specific example falling within that range is disclosed in the prior art. Further, “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 26, 2013 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
Objective evidence of non-obviousness “must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” Background / Facts: The patents here relate to custom-made “dispenser assemblies,” i.e., spray pumps with an attached dip tube, for...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 24, 2013 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
Objective evidence of nonobviousness need only be “reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.” There is no requirement that an applicant or patentee produce objective evidence of nonobviousness for every potential embodiment of the claim. Background /...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 12, 2013 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
“[A]n invention can often be the recognition of a problem itself.” This may be especially evident where the problem has persisted for a long time without being recognized. Such a “considerable time lapse suggests instead that [an obviousness rejection] only traverses...
