jump to navigation

Another argument against obviousness September 17, 2012

Posted by Brian Schar in Federal Circuit, Patent prosecution.

As I catch up on recent Federal Circuit precedential decisions, I was struck by this piece of analysis in Kinetic Concepts v. Smith and Nephew:

“Because each device independently operates effectively, a person having ordinary skill in the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.” (at page 46)

The Federal Circuit seems to be saying that, if the prior art teaches two devices that are effective for a particular purpose, there is no rationale for combining those devices in order to accomplish a different purpose.  That is, if A and B are equally effective at solving problem X, then there is no reason to combine them to solve problem X, or a different problem Z not mentioned in either reference.  I need to think about this one some more, but nevertheless I do think that this Kinetic Concepts argument against combining references may be just as useful as the major MPEP 2143.01 arguments.


No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: