Patent Prosecution Update
December 2010
Obviousness After KSR: The 2010 KSR Guidelines
In addressing the law of obviousness in its 2007 decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court placed a different emphasis on the framework set forth in Graham v. Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and abrogated the exclusive application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test developed by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the TSM test was merely one possible line of reasoning that could be used to support an obviousness determination. More
EPO Practice Tip
As reported in the July 2010 edition of “Full Disclosure,” the European Patent Office (EPO) recently instituted a number of changes to the European Patent Convention (EPC). One of these changes relates to Rule 161 EPC Communications, which pertain to the deficiencies noted in a PCT Written Opinion or International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPER). More
*Elizabeth A. Laughton is a Law Clerk with Finnegan.
Obviousness After KSR: The 2010 KSR Guidelines
In addressing the law of obviousness in its 2007 decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court placed a different emphasis on the framework set forth in Graham v. Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and abrogated the exclusive application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test developed by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the TSM test was merely one possible line of reasoning that could be used to support an obviousness determination. More
EPO Practice Tip
As reported in the July 2010 edition of “Full Disclosure,” the European Patent Office (EPO) recently instituted a number of changes to the European Patent Convention (EPC). One of these changes relates to Rule 161 EPC Communications, which pertain to the deficiencies noted in a PCT Written Opinion or International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPER). More
*Elizabeth A. Laughton is a Law Clerk with Finnegan.
Rule Review
Read
The Federal Circuit Says
Read
Did You Know?
Read
Articles
High Court IP Roundup - Last Session, And What’s Next
Billion dollar patents?
USPTO first action interview pilot program redux
Resources
Podcast: Erika Arner on Bilski v. Kappos and What the Decision Means to Your Intellectual Property Protection
Webinar: An Insiders’ Guide to the USPTO: Understanding How the PTO Works So You Can Make Efficient and Effective Use of the System
DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice. The firm disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this newsletter. You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions. This promotional newsletter does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with our firm or with any of our attorneys.
Washington, DC • Atlanta, GA • Cambridge, MA • Palo Alto, CA • Reston, VA • Brussels • Shanghai • Taipei • Tokyo
www.finnegan.com
Copyright © 2010 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | All rights reserved