E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Plaintiffs (Again) File Certiorari Petition in Myriad Case »

September 24, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017ee3c22128970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In re Droge (Fed. Cir. 2012):

Comments

It is an ongoing problem that neither the CAFC nor patent attorneys in general seem well versed in distinguishing dicta from holding.

" the Droge applicants conceded that the combination of the references disclosed all the elements of their claims, but contended that the skilled worker would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that the mutant enzymes that worked in prokaryotic cells would also work in eukaryotic cells and thus their claims were non-obvious. This assertion was supported by a Rule 132 declaration by inventor Droge,"

Always good for a laugh when the inventor chimes in.

Having spent a good portion of my pre-law career studying this field, it's pretty clear that the USPTO and the Federal Circuit got it right. Well done. This case is well-reasoned and doesn't break any new ground, in my opinion.

Dear Keep:

Agreed. This is line drawing by the Office, and under the facts presented the level of predictability seems high enough to pass muster for an obviousness determination. And my point is that this would have been the case pre- or post-KSR.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30