October 20, 2023
Authored and Edited by Kathleen Galleher; Ryan V. McDonnell; Esther H. Lim
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., No. 22-1333 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,623, 7,754,042, and 7,766,475 and claims 1–6, 8–21, and 24–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,749,581 are unpatentable for obviousness in view of two prior-art references.
The Federal Circuit addressed three issues on appeal. First, the Court affirmed the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references based on their express teachings and expert testimony that the references are “complementary and compatible.” The Court found that the references’ express teachings protected against hindsight bias in finding a motivation to combine. Second, the Court held that expert testimony and scientific literature in the record supported the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. In particular, the Court agreed with the Board’s reasoning that a skilled artisan would have had ordinary creativity and used common sense when evaluating the proposed combination’s likelihood of success. Third, the Court affirmed the Board’s finding that Ms. Schwendimann had forfeited her argument that Neenah and the Board failed to explain why a skilled artisan would have chosen Kronzer as the primary reference. Even had Ms. Schwendimann not forfeited the argument, the Court noted that her primary-reference argument has no basis in its case law and that, where relevant factual inquiries are clear, characterizing a reference as primary or secondary has no legal significance.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA), combining references
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.