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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« CG Technology Development, LLC v. Fanduel, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | USPTO Makes Ex Parte Hannun An Informative PTAB Decision »

December 30, 2019


There's some sense to the concept of "inherent anticipation", but "inherent obviousness" is a logical impossibility. When are these judges going to learn to admit they're wrong and stop perpetuating inanities just because some of their colleagues got it wrong in the past?

I wish that they had decided this case on the written description basis, and left the obviousness issue alone, instead of the vice-versa approach that they took here. I think that the court reached the right endpoint, but the reasoning that they used to get there makes the whole understanding of obviousness-by-inherency much more confusing than it used to be.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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