Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc.
It is not sufficient to rely exclusively on evidence of general skepticism about the field of the invention to find a lack of motivation to combine.
Results for Motivation to combine
view Case Detail
Download PDF
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter MFG., LLP
When determining obviousness in a design application, a two-step test is used. First, a primary reference must be identified, this primary reference being “something in existence” that has “basically the same” appearance as the claimed design. Second, other references can be used to modify the primary reference “to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design.”
In re Berg
Decisions by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences finding that prior art references would motivate person of ordinary skill in art to make inventions of applications at issue are affirmed in action in which applicants have not identified any legal error affecting board’s obviousness analysis, or any factual grounds sufficient to question its findings as to teachings of prior art and motivation that references would impart to skilled artisan.