102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts
description
Transcript of 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts
![Page 1: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts
Patent Law – Professor Merges
10.18.2012
![Page 2: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Sources of 102/103 Art• 35 USC 103: “differences between
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art”
• Graham: “scope and content of the prior art”
• What is “the prior art” for purposes of 103?
![Page 3: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
§ 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
![Page 4: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Relationship between 102 and 103
All that is obvious in light of the prior art
All section 102 prior art
![Page 5: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Gradual expansion of 102/103 Prior art
• 102(a): not controversial• 102(b)
–The problem of “prior art” that is notactually in existence prior to the invention
Recall section 103: “. . . At the time the invention was made . . .”
![Page 6: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
§ 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
![Page 7: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pfaff v. Wells
Pfaff on sale activity
Pfaff Critical Date
Pfaff Invention
Date
Pfaff Filing Date
![Page 8: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
What if Pfaff had filed a claim that was novel?
• On sale: Invention with 3 elements, A, B and C
• File claim: 4 elements, A, B, C and D
• Element D makes the claim NOVEL
• But what about section 103?
![Page 9: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Relationship between 102 and 103
All that is obvious in light of the section 102(b) prior art
All section 102(b) prior art
![Page 10: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
In re Foster (1965):
102(b) IS a proper source of 103 prior art
In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 178 (C.C.P.A. 1973)
–102(g) IS a proper source of 103 prior art
![Page 11: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 988, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 166 (C.C.P.A. 1965):
[T]he contention seems to be that 102(b) has no applicability where the invention is not completely disclosed in a single patent or publication, that is to say where the rejection involves the addition to the disclosure of the reference of the ordinary skill of the art or the disclosure of another reference which indicates what those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to know, and to have known for more than a year before the application was filed. . . .
![Page 12: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
In re Foster (cont’d)
On logic and principle we think this contention is unsound, and we also believe it is contrary to the patent law as it has actually existed since at least 1898.
![Page 13: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
First, as to principle, . . . we cannot see that it makes any difference how [the public] came into … possession [of the information], whether by a public use, a sale, a single patent or publication, or by combinations of one or more of the foregoing. In considering this principle we assume, of course, that by these means the invention has become obvious to that segment of the “public” having ordinary skill in the art.. . . .
![Page 14: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Relationship between 102 and 103
All that is obvious in light of the section 102(e) prior art
All section 102(e) prior art
![Page 15: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hazeltine Research, Inc. V. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252 (1965)
102(e) as a source of 103 Prior Art
![Page 16: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Prior art
Regis filed Dec. 23. 1957
![Page 17: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The Wallace patent, however, waspending in the Patent Office when
the Regis application was filed. The Wallace application had been pending since March 24, 1954, nearly three years and nine months before Regis filed his application and the Wallace patent was issued on February 4, 1958, 43 days after Regis filed his application.
![Page 18: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
While we think petitioners’ argument with regard to § 102(e) is interesting, it provides no reason to depart from the plain holding and reasoning in the Milburn case. The basic reasoning upon which the Court decided the Milburn case applies equally well here. When Wallace filed his application, he had done what he could to add his disclosures to the prior art. -- 732
![Page 19: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
What about 102(f)?All that is obvious in light of the section 102(f) prior art
All section 102(f) prior art
![Page 20: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Oddzon Prods v. Just Toys, Inc.
• Design patent–Same standards for 102 and
103, in general
![Page 21: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Is 102(f) “prior art”?Is 102(f) more like 102(a), (b), (e), and (g)?
– Or more like (c) and (d) – “loss of right?– Or not like any other provision?
• Dictum in In re Bass: 102(f) is not about “prior art”
![Page 25: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Oddzon holding• District ct: prior disclosures to eventual
patentee were 102(f) prior art
– Recall Campbell v Spectrum Automation– “belt buckle” case
• Affirmed here: continues expansion of 102 art for 103 purposes
![Page 26: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Obscure prior art and internal research teams
• Expansion of 102/103 prior art
• Technical definition of “inventive entities”
• Problem!
![Page 27: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Inventive Entities
Inventor A
![Page 28: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Inventive Entities - Overlap
Inventor A
Inventors A + B
![Page 29: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Inventive Entities – Overlap II
Inventors A + B
Inventors A + B + C
![Page 30: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Other Variations
A + B
A + CB + C
A + B + C + D
![Page 31: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Inventive Entities - Overlap
Inventor A
Inventors A + B
Application 1
![Page 32: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Inventive Entities - Overlap
Inventor A
Inventors A + B
Application 1
Application 2
![Page 33: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
The 1984 Amendment to 103• Added what is now 103(c)“Subject matter developed by another
[inventive entity], which qualifies as prior art only under 102(e), (f) or (g), shall NOT preclude patentability where subject matter and claimed invention were owned by same person or subject to obligation of assignment to same person at time invention was made”
![Page 34: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
“[O]wned by same person or under obligation to assign”: the
importance of Contracts!
• Same prior art that would invalidate patent when created by independent parties will be REMOVED from prior art by contractual agreement by all parties
![Page 35: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Legislative activity• Cooperative Research and Technology
Act of 2004, P.L. 108-453, Dec., 2004
• Extended section 103(c) to cover situation of contractual joint research projects
![Page 36: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
The same benefit available under 35 USC § 103(c) will also apply to joint research teams where “the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made.”
![Page 37: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Analogous Arts
![Page 38: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Hetherington “Bladder
Bags”
![Page 42: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
United States Patent 4,683,949 Sydansk , et al. August 4, 1987 Conformance improvement in a subterranean hydrocarbon-bearing formation using a polymer gel
Conformance improvement is achieved in a subterranean hydrocarbon-bearing formation using a gel. The gel components are combined at the surface and injected into the desired treatment zone via a wellbore
Inventors: Sydansk; Robert D. (Littleton, CO); Argabright; Perry A. (Larkspur, CO) Assignee: Marathon Oil Company (Findlay, OH)
![Page 43: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Analogous arts: tests
• From same field?
• Pertinent to problem solved?
![Page 45: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Sydansk reference
• Board of Appeals: same field (oil extraction)
• Federal Circuit: wrong!
–Storage vs extraction
![Page 46: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Sydansk: Same Problem?• Differences in conditions governing problem
to be solved
–Underground conditions different from storage tanks
–PHOSITA faced with Clay’s problem would not look in oil extraction art – AGREE?
![Page 47: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Counterpoint: In re Paulsen
• Hinge in laptop computer claim
• Other mechanical arts relevant; “problem not unique to portable computers . . .”
–Importance of problem focus
![Page 48: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed Cir 2011)
• Invention for bird nectar mixing device
• Prior art cited was from fields where solids were mixed in fixed proportions
![Page 49: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
In re Klein, at 1350-51Held: The purpose of [prior art] is to separate solid
objects. An inventor considering the problem of “making a nectar feeder with a movable divider to prepare different ratios of sugar and water for different animals,” would not have been motivated to consider any of these references when making his invention,*…since none of these three references shows a partitioned container that is adapted to receive water or contain it long enough to be able to prepare different ratios in the different compartments
![Page 52: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
“General Principles”• In re Mariani, 177 F.2d 293
Cust. & Pat.App. 1949
• Application was properly rejected with respect to certain claims for patent for fruit juice extractor, where features claimed to be novel were not in fact novel, but were scientific necessities, or, at least, scientifically desirable and well known to those skilled in the art, and had been used in a fishing reel and in automobile jacks.
![Page 53: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
State Contracting & Engineering Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc.
346 F.3d 1057C.A.Fed. (Fla.),2003
• Technology: Highway construction, integrated column and pile
• Reference: Xanthakos, “Slurry Walls”
![Page 54: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
![Page 55: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Xanthakos Reference• Slurry Walls (McGraw-Hill Series in
Modern Structures) • Author(s): Petros P. Xanthakos
Release Date: September, 1979
![Page 56: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
[A] factfinder could reasonably conclude that the inventor's field was the use of integrated column and pile structures to provide support. The written descriptions of the two patents indicate that the inventions are directed to an integral column and pile for use in building structures in sandy soil, and there is at least a question of fact as to whether Xanthakos is within the field of integral column and pile support structures, since Xanthakos teaches a "prefounded column" consisting of a column that merges with the pile when the concrete of the pile hardens around the column, and explains that the prefounded columns are used to support a superstructure.
![Page 57: 102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081507/5681680c550346895ddd93e6/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
KSR: P. 674When a work is available in one
field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.