<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Biotechnology Patent Law Blog &#124; Patents4Life by Warren Woessner &#187; Obviousness</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/category/obviousness/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.patents4life.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas &#38; 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 from X, B is known from Y; there was no invention in combining A with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nonanalogous Art Lives! In Re Klein</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/06/nonanalogous-art-lives-in-re-klein-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/06/nonanalogous-art-lives-in-re-klein-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Arnold G Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark muller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, the CAFC decided IN RE ARNOLD G. KLEIN 2010-1411, finding error in the USPTO’s rejection of patent claims based on obviousness, using non-analogous art.  You may find the following useful in your prosecution efforts. (A link to the decision can be found at the end of this post.) The law is … “A reference [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/06/nonanalogous-art-lives-in-re-klein-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Innovation Toys And Analogous Art – Defender Against Hindsight?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/innovation-toys-and-analogous-art-%e2%80%93-defender-against-hindsight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/innovation-toys-and-analogous-art-%e2%80%93-defender-against-hindsight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analogous art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Graham v. Deere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Haymond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Kahn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innovation Toys v. MGA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is nothing particularly surprising in the recent Fed. Cir. decision of Innovation Toys v. MGA Entertainment, App. No. 2010-1290 (Fed. Cir. March 21, 2011) (a copy is available at the end of this post), which reversed a District Court finding of unobviousness, except that the District Court had erroneously found that a key piece of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/03/innovation-toys-and-analogous-art-%e2%80%93-defender-against-hindsight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AIPLA Webinar on KSR Features Woessner and Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/aipla-webinar-on-ksr-features-woessner-and-lewis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/aipla-webinar-on-ksr-features-woessner-and-lewis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conferences and Classes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=866</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 2nd, I will be presenting with Jeffrey Lewis of Patterson, Belknap, Webb &#38; Tyler in an AIPLA live online seminar entitled, “KSR and the Ripple Effect: Examining the Broad and Increasing Impact of KSR on Patent Litigation and Practice.” Click here for further information.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/aipla-webinar-on-ksr-features-woessner-and-lewis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Glatt Air Techniques – Glatt Sailing for Applicants</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/01/in-re-glatt-air-techniques-%e2%80%93-glatt-sailing-for-applicants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/01/in-re-glatt-air-techniques-%e2%80%93-glatt-sailing-for-applicants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glatt Air]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc. (January 5, 2011) (link below), the Fed. Cir. in dicta reminded the PTO that evidence of commercial success – unlike a showing of unexpected results –need not be commensurate in scope with the claims it is alleged to support. The panel said that such evidence must be considered if [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/01/in-re-glatt-air-techniques-%e2%80%93-glatt-sailing-for-applicants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KSR Panel at AIPLA Annual Meeting</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/10/ksr-panel-at-aipla-annual-meeting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/10/ksr-panel-at-aipla-annual-meeting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conferences and Classes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to all of you who attended (or tried to attend) the panel presentations on KSR Tuesday morning at the AIPLA Annual Meeting. We apologize, but were pleasantly surprised,  that the room was too  small to accommodate all who wished to attend. Although it is available at the AIPLA website, I have attached the paper [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/10/ksr-panel-at-aipla-annual-meeting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Issues “2010 KSR Guidelines Update”</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/09/uspto-issues-%e2%80%9c2010-ksr-guidelines-update%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/09/uspto-issues-%e2%80%9c2010-ksr-guidelines-update%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 1st, the Office of Patent Legal Administration (I didn’t know there was one) issued 17 pages in the Fed. Reg. (Vol. 75, 53643) updating its obviousness guidelines. (A copy of the guidelines is found at the end of this post.)  The Update is mostly a meaty analysis of 22 post-KSR Fed. Cir. decisions, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/09/uspto-issues-%e2%80%9c2010-ksr-guidelines-update%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CANCELLATION OF WARF STEM CELL CLAIMS: THE &#8220;DR. HYDE&#8221; SIDE OF KSR</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/cancellation-of-warf-stem-cell-claims-the-dr-hyde-side-of-ksr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/cancellation-of-warf-stem-cell-claims-the-dr-hyde-side-of-ksr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 20:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, in a notably unremarked decision, the Board reversed the Examiner, effectively canceling all of the claims to pluripotent human embryonic stem cells (ES) in Thomson (U.S. Pat. No. 7029913): The Foundation for Taxpayer &#38; Consumer Rights v. Patent of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), App. No. 2010-001854 (April 28 2010). The Examiner had reversed his original rejections on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/05/cancellation-of-warf-stem-cell-claims-the-dr-hyde-side-of-ksr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Kappos and The Impact of KSR – A Unique Opportunity For Our Profession</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-%e2%80%93-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-%e2%80%93-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-%e2%80%93-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Paul ColeVisiting Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University, UK On Tuesday 24 November, David Kappos made a posting on the Director’s Forum including the following statement: Some have suggested that the Office is determining obviousness in a way that stifles innovation by refusing patents for truly inventive subject matter. They’ve asked us to provide [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-%e2%80%93-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Mows Down Bean Patent &#8211; Reading Between the Rows</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/07/federal-circuit-mows-down-bean-patent-reading-between-the-rows/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/07/federal-circuit-mows-down-bean-patent-reading-between-the-rows/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plant patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pod-Ners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/07/federal-circuit-mows-down-bean-patent-reading-between-the-rows/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 10, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Pod-Ners, Appeal No. 2008-1492, affirmed the Board&#8217;s rejection of all of the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,079. The Board had rejected as obvious claims to, inter alia, a pinto bean plant producing yellow beans of a certain color, as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/07/federal-circuit-mows-down-bean-patent-reading-between-the-rows/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

