All tagged 35 USC 103

What Should Inventors Document from Conception Regarding Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness?

Inventors and patent owners should do everything they can to establish objective evidence of non-obviousness throughout and contemporaneously with the inventive process and the development of the market. What is this evidence, exactly?  It is evidence of "unpredictable results," "industry praise," "copying by others," "long-felt need," and "commercial success" that is directly tied to the claimed aspects of the invention.  Some examples from "famous" cases follow will help illustrate the type of information that should be compiled.

What do Contingent Fee Lawyers Consider when Evaluating Novelty and Non-Obviousness?

Patent lawyers must consider the question of novelty and obviousness when considering a case on a contingent fee basis. Lack of novelty due to anticipation is rarely a dispositive factor during a contingent fee licensing program.  Typically the more significant issue becomes combinations of art with "expert" arguments that "it would have been obvious" to come up with the invention.  However, with knowledge of the law, inventors can take action to establish a factual record of objective evidence of non-obviousness throughout the inventive process to combat future “obviousness” rejections.