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 7, 2013 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
Secondary considerations of non-obviousness are a vital part of the obviousness inquiry and must be given due consideration. Background / Facts: The patents on appeal here from an adverse decision at the ITC relate to smartphone touchscreens. In particular, one patent...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 15, 2012 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
This is likely now the seminal case on objective evidence of nonobviousness. The court went out of its way to note that “[f]ew cases present such extensive objective evidence of nonobviousness, and thus we have rarely held that objective evidence is sufficient to...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 21, 2012 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
This was a fairly fact specific analysis, but I think one takeaway of note is that an inventor’s own declaration is usually given less weight than that of a more neutral party. It is also another cautionary tale about how an inventor’s own work can be used against...
