Fletcher YoderA reference that contains an obvious typographical error that would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art such that the person would disregard or correct the error does not disclose the subject matter contained in that error.
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.
In determining obviousness, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language found in the specification is not altered by use of passive voice and plural language in the claims.
In determining the presumption of nexus for secondary considerations, a patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a “critical” unclaimed feature that materially impacts the product’s functionality.
Claims are obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine/modify prior art systems with predictable results. Findings of obviousness are a matter of law and thus reviewed de novo.
If the prior art teaches two predictable choices and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, then § 103 will bar the patentability of an obvious variation.
Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.
Inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis where the limitation issue is the natural result of the combination of prior art elements.
Invocation of common sense properly accompanied by reasoned analysis and evidentiary support serves a critical role in determining obviousness.
A weak showing of both long-felt but unresolved need and copying cannot overcome a strong showing of obviousness set forth by predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions.