by Steve Driskill | Jul 19, 2016 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
The claimed combination as a whole can serve as a nexus between the claimed invention and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Here, for example, the nexus was found to be provided by the combination of a prior art automobile engine and cooling modifications for...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 17, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A proposed combination of prior art references may be proper even if it would eliminate one or more advantages disclosed in the reference being modified. Here, for example, substituting yarn types in a fabric of the primary reference was found to be proper even though...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 14, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
Conflict with mere advantages or preferences identified in the prior art does not by itself constitute teaching away from a proposed combination. Here, for example, the prior art’s expressed preference for automated computer systems over trained clinicians was found...
by Steve Driskill | May 18, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
For the purposes of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, there can generally be no motivation to modify a prior art device in a manner that is inconsistent with the prior art’s stated goals. Here, for example, no motivation was found to add complexity to a...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 7, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A mere preference that conflicts with a proposed combination of prior art references does not rise to the requisite level of discrediting or disparaging remarks necessary to establish that the prior art teaches away from the proposed combination. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 24, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A problem to be solved that forms the basis of a reason to combine the prior art must be known in the art or derived directly from the prior art to avoid the impropriety of hindsight bias. Here, for example, the problem of solubility to be solved by the proposed...
