• Home
  • About Me
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent Prosecution Services
    • Patent Defense Services
    • Patent Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Search Services
    • Trademark Prosecution Services
    • Trademark Enforcement Services
    • Trademark Defense Services
    • Patent and Trademark Licensing Services
    • Worldwide Patent and Trademark Services
  • Learning Resources
    • 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
      • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
      • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
      • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
      • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
      • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
      • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
      • 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
      • Best uses for design patents
      • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
      • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
      • Benefits of Patent Protection
      • Continuation patent application and related divisional and continuation in part
      • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
    • 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 process
      • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
      • What is a patent search and How to do it?
      • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
      • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
      • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Comprehensive)
      • Benefits of a Patent Search
      • Overview of Patent Process
      • Patent process timeline and major milestones
      • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
      • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
      • USPTO Website
    • 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
    • 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
    • Patent infringement
      • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
      • What are the patent marking requirements and its benefits?
      • Avoiding Patent Infringement
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
    • 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
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Patent Attorney | Orange County | OC Patent Lawyer

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Responding to Office Actions / Detailed explanation for motivation to combine required for obviousness

Detailed explanation for motivation to combine required for obviousness

April 25, 2017 by James Yang

ObviousnessSummary

A proper rejection on obviousness requires that the examiner show how one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine two or more prior art references to make the claimed invention. In Personal Web Technologies v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2/14/17), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) failed to explain why a relevant skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the prior art references. At most, the explanation provided by the PTAB is that the prior art references would have allowed for the claimed function. The requisite explanation is not whether the prior art references could be or can be combined but rather why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references and also how the combination of the references was supposed to work. Also, even if the references could be combined, there must be a reasonable expectation that the combination would be successful.

Standard for obviousness rejection

A proper obviousness rejection requires that the examiner show that:

1) the prior art references disclose all of the elements recited in the claim;

2) one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine the prior art references to produce the claimed invention; and

3) a reasonable expectation that the combination would be successful.

More information on a proper obviousness rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143.01-2143.03. The Personal Web Technology case focused in on the second and third aspects described above.

Facts of Personal Web Tech v. Apple

The claimed invention was directed to a method of locating data and controlling access to data by giving a data file a substantially unique name that depends on the files content – a so-called “True Name.” The True Name is compared with a plurality of other values in a network, a determination is made whether a user is authorized to access the data and access to the data is provided or denied based on that determination.

The two prior art references relied upon by the PTAB to reject the claimed invention were Woodhill and Stefik. Woodhill disclosed a system for using content-based identifiers in performing file management functions such as backing up files. Stefik disclosed an authentication system designed to control access to digital works stored in a repository. Each digital work is assigned a unique identifier. Each digital work also has associated usage rights to control access to the work. A user demonstrated authorization to access the digital work through a digital ticket, which identifies the ticket holder as having access to the digital file because the holder has paid for access or is otherwise entitled to access.

Rationale for reversing obviousness determination of PTAB

In rejecting the claimed invention being obvious, the PTAB merely explained that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Woodhill and Stefik would have understood that the combination of Woodhill and Stefik would have allowed for the selective access features of Stefik to be used with Woodhill’s content dependent identifiers feature. This explanation amounted to an understanding that one would have understood that those references could be combined. The PTAB failed to show how one would have been motivated to make the modification. The PTAB also failed to show how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.

Oftentimes, during patent prosecution, the examiner will make a similar brief statement in making an obviousness rejection. The examiner may state that the combination would motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in order to [insert benefit such as to make something cleaner, simpler, more readily available, etc]. The examiner may insert any benefit including the benefit disclosed by and achieved by the instant invention. The examiner may make such assertions without explaining the details of how the combination was supposed to be combined.

Part of the reason that the Federal Circuit may have wanted more of an explanation may be because of the complexity of the subject matter.  In the instant case, the Federal Circuit explained that the amount of explanation needed to show obviousness is dependent upon the complexity or simplicity of the claimed invention. “A brief explanation may do all that is needed if, for example, the technology is simple and familiar and the prior art is clear in its language and easily understood. On the other hand, complexity or obscurity of the technology or prior-art descriptions may well make more detailed explanations necessary.”

For highly technical inventions, this case may be useful in citing to the examiner and asking for a more detailed response as to how the references would work together.

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

Filed Under: Office Action, Responding to Office Actions Tagged With: Obviousness

Author: James Yang

Helping entrepreneurs and mid-size businesses since 2004. Call me at (949) 433-0900 to schedule your free initial consultation. Read More…

Covid-19

Covid-19: We are fully operational.  Due to Covid-19, all meetings are conducted via zoom.

Professional Profile

James Yang Business Patent Attorney

James Yang, Patent Attorney

James Yang is a patent attorney whose practice encompasses all area of intellectual law including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Professional Profile

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?

New Book Release

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

Peer Recognition

top attorney patent application
client choice patent application
Rated by Super Lawyers
AV Preeminent rating

RECEIVE PATENT UPDATES

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

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 Prosecution Services
    Patent Defense Services
    Trademark Prosecution Services
    See All Services

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

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

© 2021 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney