Monthly Archives: August 2011

Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC

By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas & Co, Warlingham, UK Those prosecuting patent applications before the USPTO, the EPO and other examining patent offices confront on a daily basis objections of the kind: “A is known … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

In recent posts, I have worried, then warned, the Fed. Cir. holding that the Myriad “analyzing” or “comparing” diagnostic claims were invalid as abstract ideas, would cloud the IP future of “modern” claims to personalized medicine (see posts of July … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wegner Paper Probes Myriad Decisions Flaws

Prof. Hal Wegner goes for the jugular with his analysis of some of the flaws in the legal reasoning behind the holding in the recent AMC v. Myriad decision. [See my post of July 31st 2011 on the decision]. (Prof. … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment