McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

« CAFC: Claimed "Acid" Precludes Coverage for "Salts" | Main | CAFC: What Evidence Does an Accused Infringer Need for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement? »

Mar 22, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c588553ef00d834b5045069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BPAI's factual findings affirmed when based on more than a mere scintilla of evidence:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Looking back, it is clear that the Fed. Cir. in Kahn was providing justification for its M-T-S test in view of the impending cert in KSR. They take several pages to explain why the MST test exists and where it fits in with the Graham factors.

Hope SCOTUS adopts at least some of the M-T-S test. The Graham factors are more readily applied in a truely adveserial proceeding, such as litigation. It is hard for Examiners and prosecutors to establish what it "obvious" without a more bright-line rule. (Yes, MST is more bright line than Graham). When is the last time any Examiner actually determined the "level of ordinary skill in the art"? District Courts have a hard time determining that, even with expert testimony and discovery. If SCOTUS does drop the M-S-T test and affirm the Graham rules, expect to see way more appeals to the BPAI re: obviousness. It is not going to stop corporations from trying to protect as much IP as possible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search & Share




  • The Web Patent Blog

Patently-O Jobs

Subscribe


  • 19,000+ individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.

Categories

Authors

Terms of Use & Disclaimer

  • Terms of Use

  • Patently-O on Facebook
    Connect with Patently-O readers.

  •