Obviousness Archives - Page 3 of 6

February 28, 2017

Patent Appeal Board Rejects Home Healthcare Administration System for Obviousness

PAB 1394 - The Patent Appeal Board rejected the “Home Health Point-Of-Care and Administration System” disclosed in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,579,081 for being obvious to a person skilled in the art.

January 10, 2017

PAB Finds Proposed Amendments Overcome Defects in Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides Application

PAB 1393 - The Patent Appeal Board found that Canadian Patent Application No. 2,544,223, entitled “Stabilized Alpha Helical Peptides and Uses Thereof” lacked utility, lacked sufficient disclosure, was obvious, and included indefinite claims.

December 20, 2016

Bargain Theory Requires Adequate Disclosure in Patents

2015 FC 108 - Patent drafters are required to provide adequate disclosure of an invention in patent applications to reduce the likelihood that the granted patent will be litigated and invalidated years down the road. This Federal Court (“FC”) decision dismissed an application for a prohibition order on the grounds of non-infringement and found the patent to be obvious and lacking in utility.

November 28, 2016

Patent Appeal Board Rejects Waste-Disposal Film Dispensing Cassette for Obviousness and Lack of Novelty

PAB 1392 - Patent applicants should be wary of relying solely on evidence of commercial success to avoid rejection on the grounds of obviousness, as factors such as marketing may be found to be the actual reason for the success.

November 23, 2016

FC Invalidates Selection Patent as Obvious in View of Genus Patent

2015 FC 247 - The Federal Court reminds us that a selection patent will typically require something more than routine testing to justify the reclaiming of a particular compound within a previously known class of compounds.

November 14, 2016

Patent Appeal Board Rejects “Simple” Sports Training Aid for Obviousness, Improper Inclusion of New Matter, and Indefiniteness

PAB 1391 - Although the simplicity of a product may be attractive from a marketing perspective, it makes for an easy rejection of the patent application for obviousness.

October 21, 2016

FCA Clarifies Test for Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting

2016 FCA 119 - The FCA dismissed the appeal, which alleged that Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 was invalid on the basis of obviousness-type double-patenting and for lack of utility due to no sound prediction. As a result, the ‘784 patent was upheld.

October 5, 2016

“More or Less Self-evident” Remains the Standard in the Obvious-to-Try Test

2015 FCA 286 - An attack on the Federal Court’s slight rewording of the obvious-to-try test has proven unsuccessful. The FC referring to a 'fair expectation of success'" was not a reviewable error.

August 31, 2016

FCA Confirms Reasonably Diligent Search Correct Test in Obviousness Analysis

2015 FCA 163 - In the obviousness analysis and determining whether a person skilled in the art would have discovered the prior art, the FCA upheld the application of a reasonably diligent search standard.

August 8, 2016

FC Calls on Opening Canadian Patent Prosecution File Histories for Claim Construction

2016 FC 883 - The Federal Court followed the longstanding rule against the use of patent prosecution file history in interpreting the claims of a patent, but made a strong case for why the patent prosecution file history is worth considering, as is common practice in the U.S.