Federal Circuit renders claims obvious as "predictable variations"
Relying on the "obvious to try" language in the Supreme Court's KSR decision, the Federal Circuit rendered claims to a candle holder obvious. The claimed recieted a base with a cap that could be used as a stand for the candle holder's base. In the February 9, 2009 opinion, the Federal Circuit reviewed the prior art and analyzed the obviousness question as follows:
Characterizing the evidence of commercial success as "minimal," the Federal Circuit held they did not outweigh the "clear indication of obviousness apparent from the prior art." Slip op. at 16, citing Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
A link to the slip opinion is below:
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inv. v. Limited Brands, Inc. CA. No. 2008-1333 (Fed. Cir., February 9, 2009)
Slip op. at 13. It went on to explain that, under KSR, the analysis of obviousness should be made explicit, but the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine to not have to be. Slip op. at 14. The Federal Circuit also criticized the district judge for "failing to take account of the 'inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ ..." Slip op. at 15.The combination of a cover-stand and feet on the bottom of the candle holder was obvious to try in an effort to minimize scorching, as the combination would further raise the bottom of the candle holder above the supporting surface. The resulting, and desired, decreased heat transfer between the candle holder and the supporting surface from the combination would have been entirely predictable and grounded in common sense.
Characterizing the evidence of commercial success as "minimal," the Federal Circuit held they did not outweigh the "clear indication of obviousness apparent from the prior art." Slip op. at 16, citing Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
A link to the slip opinion is below:
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inv. v. Limited Brands, Inc. CA. No. 2008-1333 (Fed. Cir., February 9, 2009)
Comments