Sirona BPAI loss affirmed by CAFC
The CAFC affirmed the decision of the BPAI in Sirona Dental v. Kappos
involving re-exam 95/000,390 of US Patent 6,709,694 to 3M.
In the BPAI decision of 25 August 2011, the Board cited to KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417, for the proposition that an obviousness analysis "must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function."
The BPAI distinguished cases Wyers v. Master Lock, 616 F.3d 1231 (CAFC 2010) and In re ICON, 496 F.3d 1374 (CAFC 2007) on the basis that these case involved simple mechanical inventions.
Thus, the BPAI concluded that Sirona failed to articulate some reasoning with some rational underpinning to support its proposed obviousness rejection. [KSR at 418.]
involving re-exam 95/000,390 of US Patent 6,709,694 to 3M.
In the BPAI decision of 25 August 2011, the Board cited to KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417, for the proposition that an obviousness analysis "must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function."
The BPAI distinguished cases Wyers v. Master Lock, 616 F.3d 1231 (CAFC 2010) and In re ICON, 496 F.3d 1374 (CAFC 2007) on the basis that these case involved simple mechanical inventions.
Thus, the BPAI concluded that Sirona failed to articulate some reasoning with some rational underpinning to support its proposed obviousness rejection. [KSR at 418.]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home