Patent Law: Who Knows What's Obvious?

Aug. 2, 2007
According to Jay Sandvos, a partner with Bromberg & Sunstein LLP, a Boston law firm focusing on intellectual property and business litigation, the recent Supreme Court decision makes it much easier for the Patent Office to reject claims

According to Jay Sandvos, a partner with Bromberg & Sunstein LLP, a Boston law firm focusing on intellectual property and business litigation, the recent Supreme Court decision makes it much easier for the Patent Office to reject claims as obvious just by adding together pieces of different prior-art references to resemble the claims.

In the past, this had to be supported by an analysis. Such analysis would have to demonstrate that someone in the same field tackling the same problem could have combined the prior art to make what the patent claims. That difficult analysis is no longer required. Now it's simply enough if a person in the field might have combined the teachings of the prior art for any reason at all. That's a big change, and the new test will be much easier to meet.

In addition, the judge and jury in a court case are complete novices where the technology of the patent at hand is concerned. Juries are also unfamiliar with legal concepts generally, whereas individual trial judges vary widely in their experience and skill in handling the unique legal issues arising in patent law.

By contrast, the examiners at the Patent Office are relatively knowledgeable about the technology of the patent and are familiar with the legal niceties of patent validity. Where an obviousness challenge in court is often characterized as a roll of the dice, one would expect the Patent Office to understand a genuine and well-supported obviousness argument and act appropriately.

About the Author

Sam Davis 2

Sam Davis was the editor-in-chief of Power Electronics Technology magazine and website that is now part of Electronic Design. He has 18 years experience in electronic engineering design and management, six years in public relations and 25 years as a trade press editor. He holds a BSEE from Case-Western Reserve University, and did graduate work at the same school and UCLA. Sam was the editor for PCIM, the predecessor to Power Electronics Technology, from 1984 to 2004. His engineering experience includes circuit and system design for Litton Systems, Bunker-Ramo, Rocketdyne, and Clevite Corporation. Design tasks included analog circuits, display systems, power supplies, underwater ordnance systems, and test systems. He also served as a program manager for a Litton Systems Navy program.

Sam is the author of Computer Data Displays, a book published by Prentice-Hall in the U.S. and Japan in 1969. He also authored the book Managing Electric Vehicle Power. He is also a recipient of the Jesse Neal Award for trade press editorial excellence, and has one patent for naval ship construction that simplifies electronic system integration.

You can also check out additional articles on his other author page

Sponsored Recommendations

Comments

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Electronic Design, create an account today!