103 Example cases Flashcards
(12 cards)
PAVING MACHINE
~combined several well-known elements onto a single chassis
Prior Art:
~ All components
~ Paving machines that typically combined equipment for spreading and shaping asphalt onto a single chassis
~ Radiant-heat burner attached to the side of the paver (to prevent cold joints during continuous strip paving
Differences from Prior Art:
~combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis
Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969)
~ Combination did not produce new or different funtion
OBVIOUS
BATTERY
~ with one magnesium electrode and one cuprous chloride electrode
~ Could be stored dry and activated by the addition of plain water or salt water
Prior Art:
~ magnesium chloride battery component
~ cuprous chloride battery component
~ combo batteries were impractical
~ water-activated batteries were successful only when combined with electrolytes detrimental to the use of magnesium electrodes
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-84 (1966).
NONOBVIOUS
~ “[d]espite the fact that elements were well known,to combine them required that a person reasonably skilled in the prior art must ignore” the teaching away of the prior art
a system which employs a….
screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and
a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor
Problem to be solved:
~ underpinning unstable foundations
~ need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal
Prior Art:
~ screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations. (used a concrete haunch to transfer the load of the foundation to the screw anchor)
~ a push pier for underpinning existing structural foundations. A method of transferring load using a bracket, wherein a metal bracket transfers the foundation load to the push pier
**Difference from Prior Art: **
~ screw anchor and metal bracket – used together
Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
OBVIOUS
~ Problem to be solved would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment.
~ would have been obvious to OS to substitute
applying **enteric coatings **to Omeprazole in pill form to ensure drug did not disintegrate before reaching its intended site of action
~Formulation: Two layers of coating over the active ingredient
Reason to apply intervenng subcoating: Prior art coating was interacting with omeprazole
Prior Art:
~ Coated omeprazole tablets
~ Secondary subcoatings in pharmaceutical preps
No evidence of unpredictability associated with applying two different enteric coatings to omeprazole
In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361, 87 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
NONOBVIOUS
Degradation by interaction with prior art coating was NOT known in prior art, so…
~ OS would have no reason to modify
~ OS likely would have chosen a different modification
Adding other layer
~ was extra work & extra expense for no apparent reason
~ Would not be expected to confer any particular desirable property on final product
If issue had been known-might have been obvious
**foam footwear **
~ one-piece molded foam base
~ strap also made of foam
~ attached via connectors that allowed it to be in contact with the base section, and to pivot relative to the base section
Prior Art:
~ Base section
~ Heel straps made of elastic or another flexible material
Difference:
~ Heal strap made of foam
~ Foam was likely to stretch and deform, causing disomfort
Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 93 USPQ 1777 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
NONOBVIOUS
combination “yielded more than predictable results”
segmented and mechanized cover
~ for trucks, swimming pools, or other structures
Prior Art:
~ reason for making a segmented cover was ease of repair
~ advantages of a mechanized cover for ease of opening
~ Segmented and mechanized-perform same function in combo as alone
Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
OBVIOUS
combining known prior art elements is that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined.
method of treating meat
~ to reduce the incidence of pathogens
~ spray meat with an antibacterial solution under specified conditions.
Prior Art:
~ One reference: All elements OTHER THAN “at least 50 psi”
2nd: advantages of spray-treating at pressures of 20 to 150 psi when treating meat with a different antibacterial agent . High pressure to improve the effectiveness
Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 91 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed Cir. 2009)
OBVIOUS
“there was an apparent reason to combine these known elements “
OS would have recognized reason to apply with high pressure and would know how
OS would know how to optimize (if they didn’t, may not have been obvious)
barbell-shaped hitch pin locks
~ to secure trailers to vehicles
~Improvements over prior hithch pin locks: Removable sleeve and external flat flange seal to protect lock mechanism from contaminents (locking devices)
Prior Art:
~ Each of several references- every element EXCEPT Removable sleeve and external covering
~ Sleeve improvement-using a vehicle to tow a trailer
~ Sealing improvement- Padlock rather than a tow hitch
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
OBVIOUS
~ Lock was analogous art
~ Adequate motivation to combine
~ Common sense to combine
**polyaxial pedicle screw **
~ used in spinal surgeries
~ included a compression member for pressing a screw head against a receiver member
Prior Art:
~ Reference with all elements EXCEPT compression member (sceew head here was separated from receiver member for shock absorption. Allowing some motion)
~ Warned rigidity could render device inoperable
~ Reference with compression member-external fracture immobilization splint for immobilizing long bones with a swivel clamp capable of polyaxial movement until rigidly secured by a compression member
Ordinary Skill: would have known combining 1 & 2 would provide invention
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 90 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
NONOBVIOUS
Reason to combine ran CONTRARY to prior art
PA taught away
Also in support: Secondary Considerations: Failure by others and copying
method for decaffeinating coffee or tea
Used evaporative distillation step
Prior Art:
First: decaffeinated vegetable material: (1) trapped the caffeine in a fatty material (such as oil). (2) removed caffeine from the fatty material by aqueous extraction
Second: Suspended coffee in oil and then directly distilled the caffeine through the oil
In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)
OBVIOUS
~ would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one method for the other.
~ Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.”
method for synthesizing a protein in a transformed bacterial host species
~ by substituting a heterologous gene for a gene native to the host species
Prior Art:
First: (by 2 of 3 joint inventors)-explicitly suggested employing the method described for protein synthesis (inserted heterologous gene exemplified in the article was one that normally did not proceed all the way to the protein production step, but instead terminated with the mRNA)
Second: general method of inserting chemically synthesized DNA into a plasmid
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
OBVIOUS
~ would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the prior art gene with another gene known to lead to protein production
~ OS- Skill level high. would have been able to carry out such a substitution
Results: reasonably predictable.
~ reasonable expectation of success
**pocket insert for a bound book **
~ made by gluing a base sheet and a pocket sheet of paper together
~ forms a continuous two-ply seam defining a closed pocket
Prior Art:
~ at least one pocket formed by folding a single sheet and securing the folder portions along the inside margins using any convenient bonding method
Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007)
OBVIOUS
