35 USC 103 (MPEP 2141-2144) Flashcards
What was the Omeprazole Patent Litigation about and its conclusion?
Claims in question were found to be nonobvious.
Invention involved enteric coatings for omeprazole. Prior art taught that it needed to have a coat. Inventor applied another intervening sub coating between the prior art coating and omeprazole to prevent undesirable degradation between the prior art coating and omeprazole. The sub coating was nonobvious b/c the flaws in the prior art formulation had not been recognized.
What was the Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc v. Pavement Salvage Co and its conclusion?
Claims in question were found to be obvious.
The paving machine in question put the burner together with the other elements in one machine created a matter of great convenience, but did not produce a new or different function.
What was the Ruiz v. AB Chance Co and its conclusion?
Claims in question were found to be obvious.
The claimed invention was directed to a system which employs a screw anchor for underpinning foundations and a metal bracket to transfer to building load onto the screw anchor. Orior art used screw anchors for underpinning structural foundations and another prior art taught a method of transferring load using a bracket. Although no references showed the two elements of the claimed invention used together, artisans knew that a foundation underpinning system requires a means of connecting the foundation to the load-bearing member.
What was the Crocs v. US International Trade Commission and its conclusion?
Claims in question were found to be nonobvious.
Claims were drawn to Croc footwear in which a one-piece molded foam base section formed. Base and strap were made of foam which allowed the strap the maintain its position after pivoting. One prior art taught the base section made of foam, and another prior art taught that the straps were made of elastic or another flexible material. Prior art did not teach foam straps and actually counseled against using foam as a material for the heel strap of a shoe because it would stretch and deform, causing discomfort to the wearer. Therefore, the claims in question would not have been obvious because the combination yielded more than predictable results.
What was the Sundance v. US DeMonte Fabricating and its conclusion?
The claims involving a segmented and mechanized cover for trucks, swimming pools, and other structures were found obvious over the prior art applied.
The Federal circuit observed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that adding replaceable segments was obvious based on combining known prior art elements and would reasonably have expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
What was the EcoLab v. US FMC Fabricating and its conclusion?
The claims in question were obvious for an “apparent reason to combine.”
The invention in question was a method of treating meat to reduce the incidence of pathogens by spraying the meat with an antibacterial solution under specified pressures. Prior art taught the advantages of spray-treating at various pressures and using a different antibacterial agent. Claims were obvious because the inventors were basically optimizing the protocol for treating meat to reduce the incidence of pathogens.
What was the Wyers v. Master Lock and its conclusion?
