4 ms·
After doing some searching, found http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742, which claims only two tests survive: (a) substituting one kn
by danshapiro 16y ago
After doing some searching, found http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742, which claims only two tests survive:
(a) substituting one known element for another, which requires that the result obtained would have been predictable.
(b) the obvious to try rationale, which requires a recognized problem or need in the art and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need or problem.
I wonder if previously rejected obviousness claims can be reopened? If so, companies with issued patents have some strategizing to do.
- ScottBurson 16y agoThanks for the link, but look again: it says those two tests survive in addition to the traditional TSM test. As for the last question, there's always a risk of an issued patent being thrown out for obviousness when one tries to litigate it. I wouldn't think this changes that much (although the KSR decision, on which this is based, might have changed it).