Thursday, May 10, 2012

In re Breiner: obviousness affirmed

**The CAFC in In re Breiner affirmed a determination of obviousness:  Because the Board correctly determined the claims at issue are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, this court affirms. 

**The basic law

 Under the substantial evidence standard of review, this court will not overturn the Board’s decision if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as ade- quate to support a conclusion. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The identification of analo- gous prior art is a factual question. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During examination proceed- ings, claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and re- viewed by this court for reasonableness. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Of analogous art

 A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness analysis only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innoven- tion Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Two tests govern the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the refer- 

KSR is cited

 “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).  


Post a Comment

<< Home