Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Under 103, what must the claimed invention be over the prior art? |
Non-obvious |
|
|
What is the Graham analysis? |
1) Compare claimed invention to prior art 2) See if innovation obvious to PHOSITA 3) Check to see if secondary considerations apply |
|
|
What are three secondary considerations |
1) The innovation had great commercial success 2) There was a long felt need for the innovation in the art 3) There was a failure of others to resolve the problem |
|
|
What was the teaching/suggestion/motivation prima facie test for obviousness? |
1) likelihood of success for the innovation based on the prior art 2) the prior art has all the elements of the claimed invention 3) Suggestion that elements of the prior art could be combined |
|
|
KSR - what does the person of ordinary skill also have? |
Ordinary creativity |
|
|
KSR: an innovation is not patentable if a PHOSITA could have _____ the ____ of a the combination of prior art |
predicted, result |
|
|
KSR: Not patentable: If PHOSITA attempts something they think _______, and it does |
will work |
|
|
KSR: Patentable: If PHOSITA tries something they would _____, and it doesn't |
fail |
|
|
Based on KSR and earlier precedent, how many rationales are there for determining obviousness? |
seven |
|
|
Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. and United States v. Adams both explore Rationale 1. What is Rationale 1 and how are the cases distinguished |
Rationale 1: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results Anderson's Black Rock had all the elements from the prior art. Combining a burner with the other elements was one of convenience. It did not create an innovation that could not have been predictable from the way the prior art could have been handled. Adams had a battery that contained elements present in the prior art but the prior art taught away from the combination of those elements |
|
|
Ruiz v. AB Chance Co.explores Rationale 1. What is Rationale 1 and what is the case analysis? |
Rationale 1: prior art elements are combined in known ways to yield predictable results. This invention involved a screw and bracket design to underpin foundations. Each element was present separately in the prior art. The nature of the problem to be solved – underpinning unstable foundations – as well as the need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) in combination with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations. |
|
|
In re Omeprazole Patent LitigationRationale 1. What is Rationale 1 and what is the case analysis? |
Rationale 1: Combining prior art elements in known ways to yield predictable results The case involved a drug that had two coatings to prevent disintegration before the drug could take effect. One coating interacted with the drug to create the disintegration. Competitors claimed the two coatings were known in the prior art and that there was no unpredictability in combining them. However the interaction between the first coating and drug was not known in the prior art. The flaws in the prior art formulation had not been realized. Further a PHOSITA would have chosen a different solution had they known of the problem. PHOSITA would not have known that combining the prior art elements would have solved the problem. |
