Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. An objective analysis for determining obviousness includes considering: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the field of art, (4) and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Objective evidence of non-obviousness, or “secondary considerations,” includes evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results.
Read the full blog post.
