Posts Tagged: "obvious"

I frequently am told by inventors that they have searched the marketplace and cannot find anything like their invention. I am also frequently told that they have done a patent search and cannot find anything that remotely resembles what they have come up with. While there are many reasons for not finding prior art, just because you do not find prior art does not mean that there is no prior art that needs to be considered. In fact, it would be extremely rare (if not completely impossible) for there to be an invention that does not have any relevant prior art. Said another way, unless you have invented something on the level of an Einstein-type invention there is prior art. Even the greatest American inventor, Thomas Edison, faced prior art for the vast majority of his inventions.

This idea of revenue in exceeding revenue out is really not one that is in and of itself patentable though. Families and small businesses live with that reality every day of every week of every month of every year. So there will likely need to be some kind of a hook in whatever claims we write to make sure that we distinguish over the common sense prior art established by hard-working individuals who are the backbone of this Nation and who know that you simply cannot continue to spend more than you bring in. As our President is fond of saying — when you are in a hole you need to put down the shovel. That is common sense for individuals, families and small businesses, but seemingly incomprehensible when it comes to government — and that will be the patentability hook no doubt.

I continually preach to inventors the need to follow what I call a “business responsible” approach, which is really just my way of counseling inventors to remember that the goal is to not only invent but to hopefully make some money. Truthfully, the goal is to make more money than what has been invested, which is how the United States Congress defined “success” in the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Odds of being successful with one of your inventions increase dramatically if you engage in some simple steps to ensure you are not investing time and money on an invention that has little promise.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided an update to its Examination Guidelines concerning the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of precedential decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued since the 2007 decision by the United States Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The Updated Guidelines were published today in the Federal Register, and in response to the requests of many stakeholders the USPTO has included additional examples to help elucidate the ever-evolving law of obviousness. These guidelines are intended primarily to be used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. The effective date of the these new Guidelines is September 1, 2010, but members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would have particular value as teaching tools.

Picking up on this theme and focusing on things that at first glance seem incredibly obvious but must not be at all obvious given that those who are exceptionally smart can’t figure them out, I thought with tax season right around the corner it might be worthwhile to explore method of stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. I am sure there are other pieces of prior art, even some pieces of enabling prior art, or come to think of it wildly successful and unimaginably enabling prior art, but I am going to hang my hopes on secondary considerations.

Earlier today in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc. the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the district court properly ruled the relevant patent claims of US Patent No. 6,631,400 were invalid as a result of being obvious. In so doing, Judge Linn writing for the panel (consisting additional of Judges Prost and Dyk)…

Once again I find myself traveling for PLI, this time I am in an airplane heading for Oakland, California, with the final destination of San Francisco, California via taxi. This will be the last live location for the PLI Patent Bar Review Course for 2009. John White and I will be in San Francisco teaching at PLI headquarters downtown starting…

Everyone views the world through a prism, and the prism I look through is different than the prism others look through.  That should hardly come as a surprise given that we each find ourselves at any point in time being where we are as a result of the journey we have taken.  It is, therefore, not surprising that those who…

I want to thank Mr. Quinn for graciously inviting me to write a post on my forthcoming book The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation, which should be available on Amazon.com in December 2009. This book started as a project based on my observations. I deal with technology start-up entrepreneurs…

On that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this new brave world we need…

So much has been made about the United States Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex, which happened just over 2 years ago. Occasionally I like to take a look at how the Patent Office is handling KSR. Admittedly, this is not a scientific study, and is more aimed at having fun and perhaps also explaining so we never forget just how absurd the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR actually was. Those familiar with the KSR decision and history will recall that the non-patent experts on the Supreme Court, including Justice Antonin Scalia who openly admitted he didn’t understand patent law during oral arguments — calling patents “gobbledygook,” decided to completely do away with an objective, understandable and repeatable test in favor of a completely subjective test without any concrete boundaries. Yes, in their infinite wisdom the Supreme Court decided that the law of what is obvious should be conducted on a case by case analysis and an invention is obvious if it is “common sense.”