Last week's term was nonobviousness, which is defined as: ❋ Unknown (2008)
Patents on the other hand require "nonobviousness". ❋ Unknown (2009)
[To clarify my last post, I meant to say that the respective doctrines of nonobviousness (which existed even before it was codified, BTW ...) and product-of-nature could both apply to invalidate gene patents simultaneously, but also, that either could potentially stand alone apart from the other as well (especially the former), IMO.] Kenneth M. Alfano (Quote) ❋ Unknown (2010)
Babe's patent application is rejected on the ground that similar technology has been developed for television commentators and that Babe's invention extending these prior art developments to the game itself is obvious (in patent-speak, it "lacks nonobviousness") and is therefore not patentable. ❋ Unknown (2008)
To clarify my last post, I meant to say that the respective doctrines of nonobviousness (which existed even before it was codified, BTW...) and product-of-nature could both apply to invalidate gene patents simultaneously, but also, that either could potentially stand alone apart from the other as well (especially the former), IMO. ❋ Unknown (2010)
I'm no IP lawyer, so I'll agree the answer isn't obvious -- but isn't nonobviousness the doctrine in patent law under which patent protection is available for a claim only if the so-called improvement is not "obvious" to an individual with knowledge of the state of the art to which the claim relates? ❋ Unknown (2008)
How can “recognizing a correlation” possibly meet the nonobviousness standard? ❋ Unknown (2009)
It its petition, Medela argues that "Federal Circuit precedent broadly and improperly abrogates any right to independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103a." ❋ Peter Zura (2009)
Also, despite recognizing the problem of hindsight bias in nonobviousness analysis, the Court appeared to misconstrue the problem. ❋ Peter Zura (2008)
This paper addresses three areas where improvements could be made in the law on nonobviousness. ❋ Peter Zura (2008)
Second, the asymmetry in the error rate of nonobviousness determinations should be taken into account in setting the standard of nonobviousness. ❋ Peter Zura (2008)
Third, the concept of nonobviousness—or, better, inventive step—should be operationalized by considering the opportunities, risks, and nonpatent incentives the inventor faced at the time of the innovation. ❋ Peter Zura (2008)
The nonobviousness requirement is considered to be so central to patent policy that it has frequently been called the doctrine of invention, inventive step or simply the patentability requirement. ❋ Mary L. Dudziak (2008)
The district court did not find the obviousness arguments persuasive, noting that "the [PTO] had sufficient information before it during its prior examinations to assess the very obviousness claim [defendant] now raises, and because secondary considerations of nonobviousness cut in [Erico's] favor." ❋ Peter Zura (2008)
