Category Archives: Obviousness

In re NuVasive, Inc. – Explain Yourself!

In re NuVasive Emphasizes the Importance of Reasoning in the Obviousness Question. Since KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007), repudiated as “rigid and mandatory” the Federal Circuit “rule” for obviousness –  that the prior art must provide a teaching, suggestion or … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | 1 Comment

PTO Proposes Revisions to the Duty of Disclosure (“Rule 56”)

After issuing a brief “notice” in 2011, shortly after the Fed. Cir. revised the duty of disclosure in the Therasense (76 FR at 43631), the PTO has now published a notice of proposed rulemaking to gather comments on its specific … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Vanda v. Roxane Labs. – Are Two Natural Laws Better Than One?

As you will recall, in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim reciting a natural law had to have other non-conventional steps to pass muster under s. 101. The natural law in Mayo was the correlation between … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | 2 Comments

Apotex v Wyeth Explores Structural Obviousness

Lately, I’ve been feeling that the only case law engaging enough to write about has involved S. 101 issues, so it was a welcome break to comment on some classic principles of organic chemistry. Apotex filed an IPR petition that … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment