Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

The case of Ex Parte Lin involved a photolithography invention. The Examiner rejected the claims under the 1st paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. According to the Examiner, the Specification disclosure would not enable a person with ordinary skill in this art (POSITA) to make or use, without undue experimentation, a "photomask with wavelength-reducing material throughout the full scope of the claimed refractive index range."

Appellants argued that an artisan could make or use the photomasks because a paragraph of their specification disclosed specific wavelength-reducing materials which are known in the art to have a refractive index larger than 1.

The Board rejected this argumment, stating:

The deficiency of this argument is that it fails to address with any reasonable specificity the issue raised by the Examiner's rejection. Contrary to Appellants' belief, the issue under consideration is not whether specific wavelength-reducing materials disclosed in the Specification have a refractive index larger than 1. ... Rather, the issue before us is whether the Specification would enable an artisan to make and use, without undue experimentation, a photomask with wavelength-reducing materials throughout the claimed refractive index ... See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the specification must teach those of skill in the art how to make and how to use the invention as broadly as it is claimed). Appellants' argument does not address this issue and therefore does not reveal any reversible error in the § 112, 1st paragraph, rejection.

Not to beat a dead horse, since much has been written about the uselessness of this argument by my fellow patent prosecution bloggers (see Karen H.'s blog posting about this subject here), but seriously, don't use this argument anymore. I have yet to see it succeed even once.

The Ex Parte Michelle case involved a telecommunications network claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious. The Appellant tried his hand at the "non-analogous art" defense. The Board summarily dismissed this argument in one sentence:

"Further, we find that the references Xu, Huitema and Sollee are in the same field of endeavor, involving middleboxes across multiple address realms on a network. They are thus properly combinable."

That's all the Board wrote. They didn't even offer to explain.

The law on non-analogous art is rather straightforward. References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The moral of the story here is that the non-analogous art argument is pretty much dead and should be removed from every patent practitioner's toolbox.

The Ex Parte Zurcher case involved an electrical-type socket invention. The claim element at issue included functional language. The Examiner asserted a prior art reference that included structure that performed the same function as described in Appellant's functional language. I.e., the Examiner found the claimed functional language inherent in the prior art reference. The ensuing arguments can be separated in three types:

Argument #1

First, the Appellant argued that the structure of the prior art was not the same as the structure disclosed by Appellant in the specification. Nice try, but even a 1st year knows that's a losing argument. You should only be arguing about what's in the claims, not the specification. The Board disagreed with the Appellant and found:

"The fact that the structure of the prior art is structurally different from the structure of the 'disclosed embodiment' Appellant described in the Specification and depicts in the Figures is of little moment. The name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1998)."

Argument #2

Second, the Appellant argued that one of ordinary skill in the art must recognize that the prior art's structure would be capable of performing the functional language of Appellant's claim. The Board disagreed once more and stated:

"There is no such requirement. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Continental Can does not stand for the proposition that an inherent feature of a prior art reference must be perceived as such by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date."); In re Imeprazole Patent Litig., v. Andrx Pharms, Inc., 483 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (recognition in the prior art is not necessary when the claimed characteristic or function is inherently present in the prior art)."

Argument #3

Lastly, the Board identified the central issue as one of simply determining whether the prior art structure performed the same function as the functional claim language. Period. The Board decided :

"[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., but what it does, carries with it a risk." Id. "Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. Id., (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971) and further citing In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971).)"

The Lesson

If you use functional language in your claim, the Examiner must only find structure in a prior art reference that performs the same function. The Examiner is NOT required to find the same structure you disclose in your specification and the Examiner is NOT required to prove that a POSITA would know the prior art structure can perform the function at issue. Additionally, the Examiner does NOT have to show that the intended use of the prior art structure is the same as that of the Appellant. Again, the Examiner must only show the prior art structure can perform the functional claim language.

In conclusion, beware of functional claim language, especially when claiming an apparatus. It is more desirable to use structural claim language, which would require an Examiner to find the same structure in the prior art - often a more difficult task.

The Ex Parte Chin case involved a safety syringe having a retractable needle. The disputed claim element recited a shoulder (of the needle) that was smaller than the hole in the cylinder (so the shoulder could be pulled into the hole). But the prior art of record, Crawford, showed a drawing of a shoulder that was larger than the hole.

First, the Examiner explained away the incongruency by pointing out that the Crawford drawings were not to scale - concluding that we shouldn't give much weight to the Crawford drawings. The Board disagreed and said: "While Crawford does not describe that the drawings are to scale, that does not mean 'that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.' In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).

Next, the Examiner asserted that although the Crawford drawings did not point out the exact recited claim element, having a shoulder that was smaller than the hole in the cylinder was inherent. Again, the Board disagreed and stated: "[Crawford's] Figure 6 shows the relative sizes of the shoulder and aperture, and as the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Crawford that supports the position the aperture is sized larger than the shoulder, we find that inherency has not been established. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.")

What does this for the patent practitioner? Inherency is a factual determination and a Patent Examiner must come up with a good reason for this determination. Ideally, the Examiner would provide supporting evidence, such as textbooks, academic articles, etc., as well as convincing articluated resoing for this finding. If the Examiner only provides some weak "Examiner arguments," and has little or any evidence to make his case for inherency, then you have a good premise for reversing this finding at the Board of Patent Appeals.

The case of Ex Parte Lim involved a mobile communications network, such as those used by cell phone providers. The Examiner issued a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection based on two references - Lipsanen and Siren. The Appellant argued that Lipsanen did not disclose the claimed subject matter. The Appellant did not address Siren and did not address the combination of the two references.

The Board decided: "Appellants' argument [regarding] Lipsanen ... is unpersuasive as it attacks the disclosure of Lipsanen individually, rather than addressing the combination with Sirén described by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

The lesson here is a simple one. When attacking a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, it doesn't help to attack references individually. You must focus on the central concept behind the Examiner's rejection - the combination of the references. This means you must focus on why the combination - not the individual references - fail to disclose the claimed invention. For example, if your argument involves a claim element that is missing from the prior art, then you must argue that the combination - not the individual references - fail to disclose the claim element.

The case of Ex parte Hochsmann involved a chemical process including salt crystals. The principal issue in this appeal was whether Appellant had established that the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art reference would have disclosed a salt crystal. But how far must the Appellant go in showing that the Examiner erred?

The Board found: "We are of the opinion Appellant's arguments do not establish that the evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the nonobviousness
of the claimed procedure." The Board went on: " Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of [the prior art] with Appellant's countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude, by a
preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument, that the claimed
invention ... would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."

That pretty much says it: your burden of proof before the Board of Patent Appeals is a "preponderance of the evidence." What does that mean?

Preponderance of the evidence, which is one of the lower burdens to meet, is also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It can be described simply as "more probable than not."

The case of Ex parte Byers involved an online marketplace for selling healthcare products. The Applicant submitted a 1.132 Affidavit in support of its arguments and the Board found it insuficient to rebt the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Board stated: "the conclusory statements in the Declaration are merely factual representations of his opinions."

The Board has broad discretion as to the weight to give to declarations offered in the course of prosecution. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)("[A]ccord[ing] little weight to broad conclusory statements [in expert testimony before the Board] that it determined were unsupported by corroborating references [was] within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.") cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refactories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)("Opinion testimonytestimony rendered by experts must be given consideration, and while not controlling, generally is entitled to some weight. Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination." (citations omitted)). Although there is "no reason why opinion evidence relating to a fact issue should not be considered by an examiner," In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations. See Velander, 348 F.3d at 1371; Ashland Oil, 776 F.2d at 294. In re American Academy of Science, 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Now that's a novel argument. Patent practitioners know that market forces are rarely, if ever, a subject that we bring up during patent prosecution. The only commonly-used exception is when you make an argument of long-felt need - usually done in a 1.132 Affidavit - and even then, it is categorized as a "secondary consideration" and not given great weight. See MPEP 716.04 for long-felt need arguments.

How did the Board respond? The Board stated: "The Court in KSR does not 'mandate[] that we consider a common-sense consideration of market forces and the effects of demands known to the design community when assessing the obviousness of a given prior art combination,' as argued by Appellants. Anderson 's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62 (1969) specifically precludes Appellants' reading of KSR."

The Board went on: "

• A combination of elements may result in an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately. No such synergistic result is argued here. It is, however, fervently argued that the combination filled a long felt want and has enjoyed commercial success. But those matters 'without invention will not make patentability.' Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 153, 71 S.Ct. 127, 130, 95 L.Ed. 162. Anderson's-Black Rock, 396 U.S. at 61.

The educational moment here is that long-felt need and market forces arguments are secondary considerations and cannot be used as the main component of your non-obviousness argument. In order to combat a 103 obviousness rejection, you must focus your argument on the basics, i.e., why the references don't disclose every element of the claimed invention, why the two references should not be combined, etc. In other words, long-felt need and market forces arguments can be used as a spice, but not as the main dish.

If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, "a reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

In Ex part Regini, the Board found the Examiner "fails to respond to Appellants' teaching away argument. In this regard, the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to employ Fong's plasma of inert gas and chlorine-containing gas, which are known to be chemically reactive, to remove a silicon native
oxide layer on Vassalli's wafer in view of Vassalli's teaching that 'the effectiveness of the technique has been lost' when 'even a small amount of chemically reactive gas' is introduced to its polycrystalline silicon, which is positioned above its wafer." Consequently, the Board reversed the Examiner's 103 rejection on the grounds that the combination of Vassalli and Fong was not proper.

What can we learn from this case? First, if a cited reference expressly teaches away from a certain combination, then you have grounds for reversing a 103 rejection asserting the combination - and you don't need outside evidence such as textbooks, 1.132 Affidavits or other patents to support your point. The express teaching-away language in the cited reference can be enough to get a reversal! Second, an Examiner is required to provide a reason why a combination is obvious in a 103 rejection, especially in response to an inoperability argument. If he does not provide such a reason, this is grounds for a reversal of the103 rejection.

The Kellerman case involved a design patent application for a serving tray that looks like a ceramic cooking pan. In Kellerman, the Examiner argued that the shape of Appellant's orifice in the handle was de minimis or did little to distinguish Appellant's claimed design from the prior art. The BPAI, however, attested to the significance of the shape of an orifice in a design patent application. The Board reviewed the Patent Examiner's obviousness rejection of petitioner's claimed design in view of the prior art. The Board found that the almond-shaped opening of petitioner's claimed design differed from the oval-shaped opening of the prior art. The Board in Kellerman held that the prior art would have to be further modified to at least include the almond-shaped opening of the petitioner in order to meet the ornamental design characteristics as disclosed and that such a modification was not obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thus, the difference in the shape of the openings, in concert with other differences, was significant enough for the Board in Kellerman to reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of the petitioner's design.