Results for obviousness

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Case Number: CLB0465

Date: 12.18.2019

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.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0457

Date: 05.05.2020

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.

view Case Detail Download PDF

ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc.

Case Number: CLB0423

Date: 07.25.2018

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.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire LLC

Case Number: CLB0425

Date: 09.08.2017

Inherency may be used to supply a missing claim limitation when the missing claim limitation is necessarily disclosed by a reference; however, the PTO may require an applicant to prove that subject matter shown to be in a reference does not possess a characteristic relied upon with respect to functional limitations.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp.

Case Number: CLB0406

Date: 10.11.2017

Motivation to combine references will not be extinguished based only on preferred or selected embodiments. To successfully argue that prior art references teach away from combination, there needs to be a showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the prior art to reach any of the embodiments within the scope of the challenged claims.

view Case Detail Download PDF