Firm Announcements and Legal Updates


 

DISCLAIMER: The articles, comments, and replies (“Content”) posted on this IP Blog page (www.brightwiselaw.com/blog) are provided for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or create any attorney-client relationship or work-product privilege. The articles and the replies posted reflect the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to BRIGHTWISE Law or its clients.  You should not take any action or refrain from taking any action on the basis of any Content posted on this IP Blog page.

 

Patents, Prior Art, Obviousness, USPTO Guidance Paul Weidlich Patents, Prior Art, Obviousness, USPTO Guidance Paul Weidlich

You Call THAT Prior Art?!

As briefly discussed in my recent article titled Obviousness & USPTO Guidance (click here), a couple of issues relating to prior art have been making news lately. The two prior art topics I’m referring to are (i) the analogous prior art test and (ii) the scope of permissible motivations to combine prior art references. In addition to the recent Guidance, an even more recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) addresses how these prior art considerations impact obviousness determinations made in U.S. patents and patent applications. So, if obviousness is an issue with one of your issued patents, one of your pending patent applications, or one of your recently-conceived inventions – and I’m guessing that it is - then you may want to continue reading.

Read More