by Steve Driskill | Apr 7, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A mere preference that conflicts with a proposed combination of prior art references does not rise to the requisite level of discrediting or disparaging remarks necessary to establish that the prior art teaches away from the proposed combination. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 6, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 5, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference rather than an object as a whole. Here, for example, a “perpendicular” orientation of a substantially planar mounting plate relative to a drive-wheel axis was found to require...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 24, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A problem to be solved that forms the basis of a reason to combine the prior art must be known in the art or derived directly from the prior art to avoid the impropriety of hindsight bias. Here, for example, the problem of solubility to be solved by the proposed...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 21, 2016 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
Self-serving statements from researchers about their own work does not constitute industry praise for the purposes of establishing secondary evidence of nonobviousness. Here, for example, press releases describing work similar to the claimed invention but made by...
