you're reading...
IP, Patent

Statutory Bar Prior Art – Looking For A Test Case

In today’s article, Statutory Bar Prior Art in the Nonobviousness Analysis, Dennis Crouch asks whether anyone has a test case that might test applicability of 102(b), post invention prior art in a 103(a) obviousness analysis.  The problem, according to Prof Crouch:

A plain reading of the statute that considers the obviousness of an invention “at the time the invention was made.”  …

Despite that seeming clarity, in its obviousness analyses, the Foster Court (and subsequently, the CAFC) has given full 103(a) consideration to post-invention activities that qualify as prior art under Section 102(b).

This is an interesting argument, and might be more than just semantics, but, as Crouch notes “the weight of precedent is on the side of the current rule.”  Having the better of an argument is one thing, but convincing the CAFC to reverse 45 years of caselaw is another altogether.



No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 304 other followers

Subscribe to GametimeIP via Feedburner

%d bloggers like this: