Filewrapper®

It's Better to Show that Claims Belong to an Unpredictable Art

October 28, 2018
Post by Xiaohong Liu, Ph.D.

A non-precedential opinion does not establish a new law, but usually offers good patent application drafting and prosecution tips. BASF CORPORATION v. ENTHONE, INC., came out from the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last Friday, and reminded me of a good tip: include evidence in the record to show that the claims relate to an unpredictable art.

In this case, BASF challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes review decision that a claim in a patent by Enthone was not obvious over a combination of two references. The disputed claim relates to an electrolytic plating composition comprising a source of [copper] ions and a polyether suppressor compound comprising a combination of propylene oxide (PO) repeat units and ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units. 

BASF argued before the PTAB that the claim is obvious because a first reference teaches an electrolytic plating composition including a suppressor compound and a second reference teaches that the polyether may be used as “suppressor agents for plating compositions”. However, the PTAB found that the second reference did not provide the requisite motivation to combine, because “there must be some specific motivation to employ specific plating bath components, given the general unpredictability in the field and the art”.

BASF argued on appeal that the PTAB erred by applying an overly “stringent version” of the motivation to combine test. CAFC held that the PTAB did not apply an incorrect legal standard in its motivation to combine analysis, because “this approach fits within the Supreme Court’s directive to “account [for] the inferences and creative steps that a [PHOSITA] would employ”, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, "by considering whether, based on the record, the level of unpredictability in the art would affect such inferences and creative steps, such that a PHOSITA might require a more explicit directive”.

It is very common for a claim in any patent application to be a combination of two or more elements that already exist in the prior art, leading to one or more obviousness rejections for the claim over a combination of two or more cited references. To enhance the chances to overcome the obviousness rejection(s) for such claims, it is always good practice to include some evidence in the patent application or to point out the same in the cited references to show that the claims relate to an unpredictable art.

Xiaohong Liu, Ph.D., is an Intellectual Property Attorney in the Biotechnology & Chemical Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information, please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Xiaohong directly via email at xiaohong.liu@ipmvs.com.

 


 



Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

Captcha Image