Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

On Monday of this week, Microsoft filed a patent infringement suit against Robocast alleging infringement of the 6,632,248 patent, which covers customization of network documents. Robocast, a New York based company, enables users to see more web pages, more easily and turns the act of browsing into an automated, interactive experience.

The 6,632,248 patent covers the customization of network documents by accessing customization information on a server computer using unique user. User-selected customization information for a network (e.g., HTML) document is stored at a server with reference to user identifying information that uniquely identifies the user. Whenever the user navigates back to the network address of the HTML document, the user is identified automatically and receives a customized HTML document formed in accordance with the customization information. This invention allows HTML sites to customize their site to a user's preferences based on previous visits to a website. Not a bad idea in today's multi-platform world where web site viewing problems are common.

The value of the 6,632,248 patent is proportional to the e-commerce industry. According to research firm IDC, the size of total worldwide e-commerce, when global business-to-business and consumer transactions are added together, will equate to $16 trillion in 2013. IDate, another research firm, estimates the global market for digital products and services at $4.4 trillion in 2013. A report by Oxford Economics adds those two together to estimate the total size of the digital economy at $20.4 trillion, equivalent to roughly 13.8% of global sales.

What is the motivation for this lawsuit? Microsoft, the 800 pound gorilla, is obviously protecting its patent and its share of the worldwide e-commerce industry, which it routinely does by keeping a close eye on firms of any size that may pose a threat to their market share. Robocast, which has a single U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451 and other patents pending, may be validated by this lawsuit as it may indicate Robocast is on to something big enough - customization of internet searches - to attract Microsoft's attention. Thus, this lawsuit could affect Robocast's value both negatively, as well as positively,

In Microsoft's favor is the statistic that most patent cases (75.5%, to be exact) settle. When cases do go to final judgment, and almost 15% do, patentees win 989 out of 3,043, or 32.5%, of those cases. Thus, when you look at the general statistics, there is a good chance that Microsoft can either settle this case, or obtain a final judgment in its favor. Of course, these statistics can also be viewed as weighing in Robocast's favor, since it would be to their benefit, as Defendants, to settle this case and continue operating its business.

Continue reading "Microsoft Sues Robocast for Infringement of Software Patent" »

In an interesting decision yesterday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed an Examiner's obviousness rejection of a software invention, partly based on the Appellant's improper use of the common "teaches away" argument. This post highlights hot to use use the "teaches away" argument when responding to an Examiner's 103 obviousness rejection, especially when procuring software patents.

The case of Ex parte Ruiz (Appeal No. 2012-00970) involved a GoDaddy software invention used to register domain names. In responding to a 103 obviousness rejection, the Appellant argued that the cited references - Fellman and Gardos - could not be combined because one of the references taught away from doing so. In short, the Appellant provided a standard "teaches away" argument.

The Board started by citing law:

"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] 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." Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc. 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Then, the Board responded to the Appellant's arguments:

Appellants argue Gardos "teaches away from the concept of querying an internal database" (App. Br. 21). However, as set forth above and as indicated by the Examiner, Gardos discloses querying an internal database. Gardos cannot "teach away" from a disclosure that Gardos provides. Further, even assuming (without deciding) that Appellants' characterization of Fellman and Gardos is correct, Appellants' have not indicated how either Fellman or Gardos discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from "following the path" set out in either reference or would lead one of ordinary skill in the art in a "divergent" direction (i.e., querying a database). We therefore are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.

So apparently, the Gardos reference disclosed the very act - querying an internal database - from which the Appellant argued that Gardos was teaching away. Further, the Appellant could not adequately point out how Gardos taught away.

Lesson Learned? This decision teaches us two things about effectively using the "teaches away" argument. First, if you are going to argue that a reference teaches away from doing X, then you should make sure the reference itself doesn't mention X. If it does, the "teaches away" argument would not be appropriate in that case. Secondly, if you are going to argue that a reference teaches away from doing X, then you should be able to point to some convincing language in the reference that explicitly states the reference should not or cannot do X. If you cannot find such language in the reference, then again, the "teaches away" argument would not be appropriate in that case.

Continue reading "How to use the "teaches away" argument against a 103 obviousness rejection" »

Bullying amongst children and teenagers - a hot topic lately - has also recently played out in the business world. Microsoft and Apple have recently filed a complaint against Motorola (soon to be owned by Google) over unfair competition in the EU. The complaint states that Motorola's aggressive enforcement actions and high royalty fees are hindering market competition. These tech giants are battling over the use of patents related to technologies necessary to connect wirelessly to the internet and to stream video. Is Motorola being a bully or are they engaged in a legitimate enforcement of patent rights?

As of late, large technology companies are taking aggressive action to protect their patents by stopping competitors from selling products that are in their patent space. Microsoft and Apple have stated that the royalty fees offered by Motorola are way to high and therefore unfair. The argument in favor of Motorola is the free-market argument. The free market says that companies should be able to sell their technology at whatever price they desire or to charge any royalty they like. The consumers will decide whether the products, and the royalty rates, are worth what Motorola is asking. The argument against Motorola is the fair competition argument. How can competitors freely compete when Motorola has a monopoly on a particular product or space? How can consumers benefit from price competition when there is only one seller of a particular good or service? Whatever side you take, it is important to know that the parties involved - Microsoft, Apple, etc. - have all been on both sides of the argument at different points in time.

Tech companies spend a lot of money creating new technologies and obtaining patents to protect them. Money and finances are the main motivators behind these activities. But when it comes to enforcement of patent rights, there are various additional factors that must be considered. Some of those factors include the cost of the lawsuit, fair competition, the risk of a counter suit, anti-trust, public relations and business relationships. In light of the currently-ongoing 20-way mobile patent wars, tech companies may be wise to weigh all of the aforementioned factors before getting involved in a drawn out fight.

Continue reading "High Tech Bullying or Legitimate Enforcement?" »

I'm honored to be speaking at ITEXPO today at the Miami Beach Convention Center. ITEXPO is a telecommunications industry conference billed as "The World's Communications Conference and Expo." The conference is the largest and longest telecommunications industry trade show.

I will be speaking today at various SUITS (Synopsis Under IP/Patents Telecom Sourcing Conference) panel discussions. Some of the topics I'll be discussing are telecom industry patents, defending patent suits and patent trolls.

I look forward to seeing you there!

In an homage to John Welch's well-known TTAB Blog, today we ask "Would you have appealed this 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection?

In a straightforward decision today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed an Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of a computer program product claim based on the disclosure of a transitory medium in the specification. This blog post highlights a very common rejection for software-related claims.

Recall that "A transitory, propagating signal . . . is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter [under 35 U.S.C. § 101] and, therefore, does not constitute patentable subject matter under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Claims that are so broad that they read on nonstatutory as well as statutory subject matter are unpatentable. Cf. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted) ('Claims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter.'). See my previous post regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections.

The case of Ex parte Castaneda (Appeal No. 2009-013594) involved a software application that provided calendaring services. The Examiner rejected a "computer useable medium" claim because it encompassed carrier waves. Thus, the Examiner found that the claim was directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (In re Lintner notwithstanding).

The Appellant's specification clearly disclosed that a computer usable medium may include propagation mediums, such as electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, or infrared signals. Still, the Appellant decided to appeal and simply argued that the computer usable medium "could" encompass statutory subject matter and that sufficed in overcoming a non-statutory subject matter .

In light of Appellant's disclosure in the specification, the Board decided:

"... we find that the claimed "...computer useable medium embodying computer usable program code..." can be broadly, but reasonably construed to encompass a transitory, propagating signal, which is non-statutory subject matter. Further, since the claim is not limited to a non-transitory, tangible medium within one of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. § 101, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 13 is directed to nonstatutory subject matter."

I would not have appealed this 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. Mainly because it would have been so easy to amend the specification or the claim to eliminate non-statutory subject matter. It would have taken no time to delete the non-statutory language from the specification or insert the phrase "wherein computer usable medium does not include transitory subject matter" in an amendment. This often happens when the patent attorney misses the time frame for amending the claim before the Notice of Appeal or Appeal Brief was due and then is stuck having to assert a bogus argument against the 101 rejection. If the due date for filing an Appeal Brief has arrived, it's too late to enter a substantial amendment.

What does this mean for practitioners? This means that if you define your claim term, such as "computer usable medium," to include transitory media, such as carrier signals, then you can expect a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. It doesn't matter that your claim term "could possibly" include statutory subject matter. If the claim term's ascribed meaning includes non-statutory subject matter, then a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection will survive appeal.

Further, watch your docketing due dates and make sure that if you have to amend the specification or claims to avoid a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, it is done as soon as possible. Specifically, the amendment should be completed within a month of the Final Rejection, so it will most likely be entered. Don't wait until the date the Appeal Brief or Notice of Appeal is due. Otherwise, you could find yourself in the same predicament as Ex parte Castaneda, which resulted in a full affirmation of the Examiner's rejections - a total loss.

Continue reading "Would you have appealed this 101 Rejection?" »

In a quick decision today at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the Board reversed an Examiner's 103 obviousness rejection in two sentences (Analysis section only). Quick work for a usually wordy Board.

The case of Ex parte Erhan (Appeal No. 2011-008127) involved a method of making fatty acid ester derivatives. The claims involved processes of production of a ketal product in combination with the hydroxyl ester product. The Examiner rejected the claims based on 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for obviousness but wrote a sparse explanation of where the claim elements were found in the prior art.

The Board began by reciting the relevant principles of law:

When determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must make "a searching comparison of the claimed invention - including all its limitations - with the teachings of the prior art." In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

The Board finished with its Analysis section, which is reproduced below verbatim:

After reviewing the facts and arguments, we conclude that the evidence and rational set out in the rejection are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the method of claim 22. In particular, although the rejection identified prior art teachings concerning the production of a hydroxyl ester product, the rejection did not identify prior art teachings concerning the production of a ketal product in combination with the hydroxyl ester product, and did not resolve that difference between the prior art methods and the claimed method.

And in two sentences the Board reversed the Examiner's rejection.

What does this mean for patent practitioners?This means that much like a 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection, a 103 rejection must provide the equivalent of an element-by-element analysis of the elements of the claims being rejected. That is, every element of every claim must be found in the prior art cited. If you suspect that the Examiner missed, or gave little attention to, a claim element, then the Examiner is violating In re Ochiai, which may be grounds for a reversal, as in the case of Ex parte Erhan. This is in line with a previous posting I wrote about how the single most effective way to reverse a 103 obviousness-type rejection is to argue that the prior art does not disclose a claim element.

Continue reading "Quick Post: Board Reverses Examiner's Rejection in Two Sentences" »

Companies like Eastman Kodak sell products that are protected by valuable patents. The importance of the patents used to protect these products is highlighted by Kodak's recent financial troubles. Kodak, with a current market cap of about $295 million, might only be able to save itself by selling a portfolio of 1,100 digital imaging patents for an estimated $2-$3 Billion.

Kodak obtained one of its first patents (No. 1588082) in 1926. The invention was aimed at creating a photographic process that could fit into a portable, small box. Kodak went on to become one of the biggest patent filers in history. Consequently, Kodak's name became synonymous with photography for the better part of a century. But since the late 1900s, Kodak's dominance in the film business has been replaced by new technology. Due to the change in photographic technology and heavy competition, the Kodak name seems to have lost its prestige. But although the name may have less value these days, the patent royalties it generates, and the ultimate value of the company, is still high. Notably, Kodak may be collecting $1 billion in royalties soon.

The takeaway from the Eastman Kodak story is that it's important for technology companies to patent their inventions and protect their patents. Eastman Kodak's patents may be their only saving grace at this juncture.

Continue reading "Patents are the Heart of Many Companies - Eastman Kodak Case Study" »

Yesterday's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Knox confirms what I've always thought about a "no motivation to combine" argument after the decision of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc, - it's a narrow argument that doesn't have much punch.

The case of Ex parte Knox involved a computer program invention. The Examiner rejected the claims for being obvious in light of two prior art references - Lai and Bradshaw - under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants presented a standard "no motivation to combine" argument.

The Board rejected this argument, first reciting case law that is often recited in BPAI decisions:

[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). The test of non-obviousness is not whether one reference can be bodily inserted into another, but, rather, what the references, when considered together, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), who is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, and whose inferences and creative steps we may consider, id. at 418.

If you ask me, this is pretty strong language that negates just about any "no motivation to combine" argument. The In re Keller holding appears to eliminate the need to show that two references can even be combined in a technical sense.

In light of the case law cited, the Board concluded the following:

We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Bradshaw's technique of comparing first checksums with second checksums would improve Lai's file version recording ... We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary skill and creativity, would have recognized that the calculation of a checksum ... could be performed using a checksum algorithm that is insensitive to the ordering of data, such as that taught by Lai

.
The lesson learned from this case is that "no motivation to combine" arguments are not among the strongest arguments you can make at the BPAI. Seeing as the case law on combining prior art references is heavily weighted on the side of combining, I would leave this argument at the bottom of your toolbox along with the "non-analogous art" argument. Of course, every practitioner runs into tough situations at some point, and if you have nothing else, digging to the bottom of your toolbox is sometimes necessary.

Continue reading "Board of Patent Appeals Rejects "No Motivation to Combine" Argument Once More" »

Much has been written about the Pfizer Viagra patent. Recently, a District Court held the patent to be valid. All the fighting about this patent is directly related to Pfizer's $1 billion a year in U.S. Viagra sales. The patent itself has been valuated somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion.

But have you taken a look at the famous Pfizer Viagra patent? I did, and following are some interesting observations. Click here to see Pfizer's Viagra patent.

First, I am surprised to see how short the detailed description is. At less than six columns, it's one of the shorter patents out there. This goes to show, being brief is a virtue - even when you're dealing with a $10 billion patent. Second, notice how many pages of cited references there are. At 6 pages, that's a lot of references, and no doubt led to a stronger and more valuable patent. Lastly, note there are only two inventors. Though the testing and development of this drug probably cost somewhere in the billions of dollars and involved hundreds or thousands of people, it was only two guys that invented this drug and only two guys that will go down in history.

As inventors and developers of technology, we can only hope to have successful inventions. But it is certain that in order to realize a return on R&D investment, individuals and companies must pursue patents for their inventions. Thus, my recommendation to inventors and technology companies is to seriously consider pursuing patents for their inventions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, especially in cases involving inventions that may generate significant revenue.

Continue reading "The Famous Pfizer Viagra Patent" »

Today's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Michelle illustrates just how useless the non-analogous art argument really is.

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.

Continue reading "Stay Away From the Non-Analogous Art Argument" »

Yesterday's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Peng highlighted the most effective way of reversing a Patent Examiner's 103 obviousness type rejection - contesting the presence of one of the claim elements in the cited prior art. I, a Patent Lawyer practicing in the City of Miami, am always interested in reading about how other attorneys have gotten rejections reversed at the BPAI.

The Ex Parte Peng case involved a method claim performed by a GPS receiver. The claim element at issue involved the storage of certain data in sample RAM, followed by a reallocation of purpose of certain memory spaces. The Examiner issued an obviousness type rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), asserting that the claim element at issue as found in the cited prior art. The Appellant appealed and argued that the claim element was in fact NOT disclosed by the cited prior art.

In a short, one and a half page analysis section, the Board agreed with the Appellant and reversed the rejection. Namely, the Board stated:

"We agree with Appellants that the results of the accumulators are stored in the RAM latch, and not the sample RAM, ... we do not find any teaching or suggestion in the cited reference of a re-allocation for purposes ... there is no indication that some of these time slots ... have been re-allocated in a second mode ... To somehow conclude that the cited re-allocation of the time slots could be accomplished in the RAM latch disclosed in Baranyai would require us to stretch the reference beyond reasonable limits."

It seems like a simple argument - "the prior art does not disclose the claim element" - and it lacks the complexity and depth of standard non-obviousness arguments such as "no articulated reasoning" and "no motivation to combine." But it so happens that this simple argument is the single most successful way to reverse a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection (in electrical cases) on appeal before the BPAI. According to data provided by Michael Messinger, Esq. at the 2010 Board of Patent Appeals conference, 57% of the obviousness reversals in electrical cases were reversed using this argument. The next most successful argument was the "rationale/underpinning", which accounted for 37% of the obviousness reversals in electrical cases.

The lesson here is that if you want to increase your chances of reversing a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection (in electrical cases) on appeal before the BPAI, you would be wise to use "the prior art does not disclose the claim element" argument. This argument is favored by the BPAI, according to the statistics.

Yesterday's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Zurcher highlighted the problems associated with using functional language in claims, especially when claiming an apparatus. I, a Patent Lawyer in Miami, have written about this before in my article about intended use claim language.

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.

Yesterday's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Chin reversed a Patent Examiner's 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation rejection, thereby rejecting the Examiner's inherency argument. As a working Patent Lawyer in Miami Florida, I like reading BPAI decisions that show me how to reverse a Patent Examiner's rejection.

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.

Last week's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Roher affirmed a Patent Examiner's 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, thereby rejecting the Appellant's commonly used non-obvious argument. As a Patent Lawyer in Miami Florida, the Ex parte Roher decision was educational in that it highlighted a common losing non-obviousness argument.

The case of Ex Parte Roher involved packaging for hair color products. The disputed claim limitation included a recitation about alternative hair colors shown on the packaging. The Examiner asserted this claim limitation was obvious in light of the cited prior art, which was also directed to packaging for hair color products. The Appellant asserted the prior did not disclose this claim limitation and further the prior art did not hint or suggest this claim limitation.

The Board rejected the Appellant's argument, and recited the well-known "ordinary creativity" argument with regard to the person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Specifically, the Board stated: "Appellants' argument that [the prior art] ... does not disclose warmer, cooler and natural color fails to account for what the art would have suggested to and the creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Clearly demonstrating variations in tone of a color or even providing different hair color blends for the consumer to view is a desirable feature as taught by [the prior art]."

This decision teaches us that a proper 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection need not disclose the exact or identical claim limitation at issue. The prior art of record may recite an element that is close to the claim limitation, as long as it would be obvious to a POSITA, who is assumed to have ordinary creativity, to make the leap to the claim limitation. This poses an additional obstacle the patent practitioner must overcome when fighting an obviousness rejection - not only must he support his argument that the prior art of record does not disclose the claim limitation at issue, he must also support his argument as to why it would NOT be obvious to a POSITA to make the logical leap to the claim limitation.

Last week's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex Parte Lim , which affirmed a Patent Examiner's 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, teaches an important lesson - obviousness rejections must address both references - not just one. As a Miami Patent Attorney that reads BPAI decisions frequently, I'm surprised that any practitioners even try this argument anymore.

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.