IN RE SINGHAL (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective

by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to...

IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Machine translation of a foreign reference is adequate for simple technologies with straightforward figures

by Steve Driskill | Jan 20, 2015 | [sub] foreign references, Prior Art

A machine translation of a foreign language reference may be deemed adequate evidence of the reference’s content for simple technologies with straightforward figures. Here, for example, a machine translation of a Japanese reference directed to lighting for marine...

DELANO FARMS COMPANY v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMM. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use

by Steve Driskill | Jan 9, 2015 | [sub] public use, Prior Art

The inventor or a third party’s efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Here, for example, a third-party misappropriator who illicitly obtained the claimed invention but for that reason...

TYCO HEALTHCARE GRP. LP v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Secret section 102(g) prior art may still serve as prior art under section 103

by Steve Driskill | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] invention by another, Prior Art

Absent the application of a statutory exception (e.g. § 103(c)), secret § 102(g) prior art may serve as prior art under § 103 for the purposes of establishing obviousness. Here, for example, the accused infringer’s prototype, which was conceived before the patented...

IN RE ONTJES (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Statements relating to the invention in the background section may implicate additional prior art

by Steve Driskill | Sep 25, 2014 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Statements in the specification describing the invention may nevertheless be used to more specifically define the particular problem with which the inventor is involved for analogous art purposes when those statements appear in the background section of the...

SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS v. BIOTAGE AB (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Art is analogous when fields represent close-knit class of inventions for solving technical problem

by Steve Driskill | Sep 10, 2014 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Different fields of invention may nevertheless provide analogous art when the particular technical problem with which the inventor is involved (as opposed to commercial problems concerning the end-product) is such that the two fields represent a relatively close-knit...