Monday, May 05, 2008

New Precedential KSR Decision From the BPAI

Ex Parte Fu (Appeal 2008-0601), March 31, 2008

In a somewhat unremarkable, yet meaningful decision, the BPAI upheld a 103 rejection on an application related to an electrostatographic imaging member having a charge transport layer containing a specified surfactant that reduces crystallization of the charge transport layer material. The charge transport layer element was recited in the claim as "consisting of" specific compunds.

The rejection was based on a primary reference (Yamamoto) that taught most of the features recited in the claims, except that a generic surfactant was disclosed, without specifying any particular compound. Secondary references were relied on to show that the claimed compounds were used in charge transport materials.

While recognizing the broad genus disclosed in Yamamoto, the BPAI nevertheless determined that the genus was finite, and thus qualified as 103 art under the circumstances:

While Yamamoto's genus of surfactants is arguably broad, it nevertheless consists of only a finite number of known perfluoroalkyl surfactants that predictably solve the dispersion problem of the charge transport agent into the binder resin. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had "good reason to pursue" the use of GF-300, the claimed surfactant species. It would have been within the "technical grasp" of that person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that this known surfactant, which was readily available in commerce, has the
perfluoroalkyl group as required by Yamamoto.
The most noteworthey part of the BAPI's rationale in this case is that the disclosure of the genus alone would be grounds for obviousness:
Because that person having ordinary skill in the art would have "anticipated success" in trying GF-300 perfluoroalkyl surfactant in view of Yamamoto's teachings, the subject matter of appealed claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious over Yamamoto alone.
Adds the BPAI:
We expressly reject the notion that a claim reciting a species is per se patentable when the prior art discloses a genus encompassing a broad but finite number of known options which include the claimed species. We hold that such aper se approach would be contrary to the clear command of our reviewing court [In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995)("[R]eliance on per se rules of obviousness is legally incorrect and must cease.")]. That is not to say, however, that an applicant would never be entitled to a patent in a situation as here. For example, KSR and Graham, as well as a myriad of precedents of our reviewing court, teach that secondary considerations such as unexpected results may confer patentability. Also, for example, patentability may be shown if the prior art teaches away from the species within the genus. But here, Appellants did not rely on any such persuasive evidence in support of nonobviousness.

Download a copy of the opinion here.

1 Comentário:

Step Back said...

I hereby declare a genus called: "All things made by man under the sun".

I also hereby declare that there will be a finite number of species under this genus between now and when the sun goes supernova.

Ergo nothing is unobvious because it all falls under the genus and is finite in number.

A new bar against patentabilty is thus created by In re Fu. Let us call it the "Fu Bar".


This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.