IP Blog
Section 103
Limits on Obviousness - Beyond the Claim Elements
Here is a lesson on obviousness. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims for a system to measure degradation of cooking oils in a deep fryer were non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The PTAB had found that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the identified references, and that secondary...
When is Patent Prior Art Distinct but Not Different?
Where distinct physical concepts recited in a patent claim and applied prior art are related and can achieve same results, do not count on being able to distinguish teachings of the prior art. In Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. v. iOn Road, Ltd., No. 2017-1984 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2018) (non-precedential), a patent claim recited determining “a likelihood of collision responsive...
Patent That Survived Alice Is Not Obvious
A little less than a year after finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159, directed to an inertial tracking system, were patent-eligible under the Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims of the ’159 patent have not been shown to be obvious under 35...
Low Bar for USPTO to Show Motivation to Combine
A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates perils of trying to show that patent claims are non-obvious by arguing that references would not have been combined. In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions. LLC v. Matal, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017) (non-precedential), the court affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of unpatentability, in an Inter Partes Review proceeding,...