UNWIRED PLANET, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A prior art reference need not be directed to the claimed point of novelty in order to be analogous

by Steve Driskill | Nov 15, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

A prior art reference need not be directed to the claimed point of novelty in order to be analogous. Here, for example, prior art directed to the ordering of menu items was found to be analogous to the claimed prioritization of location-based search results because...

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that those references are analogous art

by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, [sub] information disclosure, Prior Art

Submitting a reference to the PTO in an information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that the reference is at least analogous art if not material. Here, for example, the patentee’s arguments that a cited reference was not analogous art for the...

CIRCUIT CHECK INC. v. QXQ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Analogous prior art is not demonstrated by simply being within the knowledge of even lay people

by Steve Driskill | Jul 28, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Prior art is not demonstrated to be analogous to the claimed subject matter by simply being within the knowledge of lay people or even within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Here, for example, three disputed references—rock carvings, engraved...

IN RE SINGHAL (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective

by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to...

IN RE ONTJES (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Statements relating to the invention in the background section may implicate additional prior art

by Steve Driskill | Sep 25, 2014 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Statements in the specification describing the invention may nevertheless be used to more specifically define the particular problem with which the inventor is involved for analogous art purposes when those statements appear in the background section of the...

SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS v. BIOTAGE AB (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Art is analogous when fields represent close-knit class of inventions for solving technical problem

by Steve Driskill | Sep 10, 2014 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art

Different fields of invention may nevertheless provide analogous art when the particular technical problem with which the inventor is involved (as opposed to commercial problems concerning the end-product) is such that the two fields represent a relatively close-knit...