• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
    • Areas Served
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Info on Forms
    • Nonpublication Request
    • Declaration of Utility or Design Application
    • Provisional Patent Application Cover Sheet
    • After Final Consideration Pilot Program
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Responding to Office Actions / Common sense used to evaluate obviousness with caveats

Common sense used to evaluate obviousness with caveats

August 31, 2016 by James Yang

Common SenseIn Arendi v. Apple (Fed. Cir. August 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the use of common sense during examination of a patent application is permitted with at least three caveats. To the layperson, this statement may sound strange. In the law, words are defined and have different standards to determine if the facts meet the definition.  Obviousness has a legal definition and sometimes that legal definition may cause the examiner to mechanically focus on the legal definition to the detriment of stepping back and seeing the bigger picture.  On the other hand, if the examiner liberally applies the definition then the results may be different from examiner to examiner.  Some inventions worthy of patent protection will not receive a patent, and vice versa.  Arendi stands for the proposition that the examination process allows the examiner to think outside of the narrow constraints of the legal definition but with caution.

Arendi (patent owner) was the owner of US Patent No. 7917843 (‘843 patent). The ‘843 patent was directed to a computer program wherein the user was allowed to access and conduct a search using a second computer program (i.e., database) while remaining in a first computer program (e.g., word processor). For example, if the user was filling out a form while working in the first computer program (e.g., word processor) and the first computer program detected a name, then a database (the second computer program) could be searched for the name. If the search found a single related contact with only one address, that address was inserted into the word processor. If instead, the search found more than one related contact addresses, the search results were displayed to the user, and the user was able to choose an address for insertion into the first computer program (i.e. word processor).

During examination, the examiner cited to a patent issued to Pandit (USPN5859636) to reject the claimed invention.  The Pandit patent disclosed a computer program able to identify a class of text and provide options for the user to select. For example, if the computer program recognized a string of text as a phone number, then the computer program would provide the user with two or more options when the user opened a pulldown menu. The phone number pulldown menu listed options such as dial, add to address book and send fax. (see Figure 1f of Pandit). The examiner pointed to the “add to address book” option to show that the claimed invention  was obvious.

Pandit Figure 1f

The examiner rejected the claimed invention and reasoned that even though the Pandit patent did not disclose the step of searching a second computer program (e.g. database) while working within a first computer program (e.g. word processor), it would have been “common sense” to a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for the telephone number that is detected in a document when the “add to address book” option disclosed in Pandit was selected.

The “common sense” line of reasoning was first introduced in 2007 when the Supreme Court published KSR Int’l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007). Prior to KSR, the obviousness analysis revolved around whether the prior art reference taught, suggested or motivated (TSM) one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references. This standard led to some strange results because the determination of whether a claimed invention was obvious was strictly a legal definition than something what a layperson would agree would be obvious.

For example, in KSR, the invention was directed to an electronically controlled brake system. Back in 2007, brakes were controlled by a wire connected to the brake pedal. The Supreme Court found that the claimed invention was obvious because brake systems were moving from a mechanical controlled system to an electronically controlled system. Even though the prior art did not disclose a brake system that was electronically controlled, the Supreme Court reasoned that based on the direction of the prior art, it would have been well within the “common sense” of one of ordinary skill in the art to make a brake system electronically controlled.

When KSR was decided, one of the issues for patent attorneys was whether the commonsense reasoning could be used to reject any claim as being a “common sense” combination of any prior art references. Patent attorneys worried that the “common sense” line of reasoning could be used to reject any and all claims. Fortunately, that was not the case. Arendi identified at least three caveats or limitations to further control use of “common sense” line of reasoning in analyzing whether a claimed invention is obvious.

First, the court stated that common sense is typically invoked to provide a known motivation to combine, not to supply missing claim limitation.

Second, although the commonsense analysis could be used to supply a missing claim limitation, when it was done so in prior published opinions, it was only able to supply missing limitations that were unusually simple and with straightforward technology. For example, if the prior art did not disclose a step of repeating prior steps, then common sense could kick in and supply that missing repeating prior steps step.

Third, use of common sense to supply motivation to combine or supply a missing limitation cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support. This was especially true when “common sense” was used to supply a limitation missing from the prior art references. Put simply, a logical reasoning must be put forth as to why the missing limitation could be supplied with common sense.

In Arendi, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision that the claimed invention was obvious. Some of the more salient reasons were that the Examiner and the Board were attempting to use common sense to supply a missing claim limitation that was more than a peripheral issue. In the instant case, the primary step was directed to the step of searching. The examiner and the Board agreed that Pandit did not disclose the step of performing a search. The examiner and the Board were attempting to use ‘common sense” to provide the missing step of searching which was central to the claim.

Although the court limited the use of common sense in analyzing obviousness by identifying three caveats or limitations, the Federal Circuit made clear that the result should be a logical analysis based on the evidence that supports a conclusion that it would been obvious to come up with the missing limitation. In practice, during examination, examiners have wide latitude in analyzing obviousness.  Rejections based on common sense appear to be fabricated to justify their own logic, at least to my common senses.  It is difficult to convince an examiner that his or her “common sense” reasoning is flawed. Any argument responding to a rejection based on “common sense” is basically an assertion that the examiner has no common sense. This is not a good way to approach the examiner who determines whether your claimed invention should be allowed or rejected.

The better approach would be to, if possible, amend the claims to provide a new or fresh approach so that examiner is provided with new information and new arguments so that the examiner can make a new decision.  Nevertheless, the Arendi opinion gives patent attorneys an opportunity to mitigate any excessive and unreasonable use of “common sense” by the examiner.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

 

Related Articles for Responding to Office Actions

  • Responding to an office action
  • Overview of office actions
  • Prior art must disclose EVERY limitation for a proper anticipation rejection
  • Common sense used to evaluate obviousness with caveats
  • Teach away arguments to show non-obviousness
  • How to disqualify non-analogous references cited in an office action
  • Detailed explanation for motivation to combine required for obviousness
  • Teach away argument for patentability requires more than a preference away
  • Broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean broadest
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients throughout Orange County, Los Angeles, Long Beach, the Inland Empire (e.g. Corona and Temecula), and throughout SoCal.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney