With
the general obviousness of a lot of rumors, its incredibly easy to rack up «credibility» by being right.
Not exact matches
It may be helpful to keep in mind that the
obviousness analysis asks whether the distance between two points in the development of the art can be bridged by the Skilled Person using only the common
general knowledge available to such a person.
The four - step approach to
obviousness adopted by the Court is as follows: (1)(a) Identify the notional «person skilled in the art»; (b) Identify the relevant common
general knowledge of that person; (2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that can not readily be done, construe it; (3) Identify what, if any, difference exists between the matter cited as forming part of the «state of the art» and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed; (4) Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?
The four - step approach to
obviousness adopted by the Court is as follows: (1)(a) Identify the notional «person skilled in the art»; (b) Identify the relevant common
general knowledge of that person; (2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that can not readily be done, construe it; (3) Identify what, if any, difference exists between the matter cited as... [more]
The FCA clarified that step 3 of the 4 - step
obviousness test that was provided in Plavix 1 requires a comparison between the inventive concept (or the claim as construed) and the prior art, not the common
general knowledge, to identify the differences, if any, between the inventive concept and the prior art.