D. 35 USCS § 103: Non-obvious subject matter
“A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 [35 USCS § 102], if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”
How do you demonstrate non-obviousness in a reasonably discoverable manner?
A software-patent codebase would make comparison of programs for non-obviousness and prior art trivially easy compared to current vetting methods. Concerns about making protected software available to the public via such a codebase are mitigated by the ability of the program developers to enforce claims against potential infringers. Current patent law provides 18 months of protection from the date the patent application is filed.
To satisfy customer needs, the competitor modified its design for an adjustable pedal system for vehicles with cable-actuated throttles by adding a modular sensor to make the system compatible with vehicles using computer-controlled throttles. The licensees contended that the competitor infringed the patent claim of a position-adjustable pedal assembly with an electronic pedal position sensor attached a fixed pivot point. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the patent claim was invalid as obvious since mounting an available sensor on a fixed pivot point of the competitor's pedal was a design step well within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and the benefit of doing so was obvious. The marketplace created a strong incentive to convert mechanical pedals to electronic pedals, and the prior art taught a number of methods for doing so. Further, the problem to be solved by the patent claim did not limit its application as prior art, the competitor's showing that it was obvious to try a combination of elements sufficiently supported the finding of obviousness, and the claim was the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. KSR Int’l. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398; 127 S. Ct. 1727; 167 L. Ed. 2d 705; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4745; 75 U.S.L.W. 4289; 82 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 248
E. 35 USCS § 112: Specification
How do you demonstrate non-obviousness in a reasonably discoverable manner?
A software-patent codebase would make comparison of programs for non-obviousness and prior art trivially easy compared to current vetting methods. Concerns about making protected software available to the public via such a codebase are mitigated by the ability of the program developers to enforce claims against potential infringers. Current patent law provides 18 months of protection from the date the patent application is filed.
To satisfy customer needs, the competitor modified its design for an adjustable pedal system for vehicles with cable-actuated throttles by adding a modular sensor to make the system compatible with vehicles using computer-controlled throttles. The licensees contended that the competitor infringed the patent claim of a position-adjustable pedal assembly with an electronic pedal position sensor attached a fixed pivot point. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the patent claim was invalid as obvious since mounting an available sensor on a fixed pivot point of the competitor's pedal was a design step well within the grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and the benefit of doing so was obvious. The marketplace created a strong incentive to convert mechanical pedals to electronic pedals, and the prior art taught a number of methods for doing so. Further, the problem to be solved by the patent claim did not limit its application as prior art, the competitor's showing that it was obvious to try a combination of elements sufficiently supported the finding of obviousness, and the claim was the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. KSR Int’l. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398; 127 S. Ct. 1727; 167 L. Ed. 2d 705; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4745; 75 U.S.L.W. 4289; 82 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 248
E. 35 USCS § 112: Specification
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.