One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can beproved obvious is by noting that there existed at the timeof invention a known problem for which there was anobvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.
So if I teach in my class that there's only four types of problems, and there's only three types of solutions, then every patent claim that uses any of the 4x3 combinations should be denied as obvious.
The question isnot whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person withordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, anyneed or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide areason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.I guess there's a premium now on discovery of a new problem.
A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.A curious statement. Before courts had trouble identifying what "ordinary skill" was. Now they will have to figure out what "ordinary creativity" is.
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of ourThe difficulty of course is how to establish the threshold in each and every technology area at any given time.
shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws.