Remake of ASSESSMENT Week 12 (Assessment 11) by https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469 Patent Law (Non-Obviousness) en-us 2020-04-09 18:02:58 UTC 2020-04-13 17:51:10 UTC hello@padlet.com koppmatthew https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/501057012 Address the final slide in this slide deck, using the information provided for Assessment Week 11.]]> 2020-04-09 18:02:58 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/501057012 Assignments koppmatthew https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/501063699 Were each responsible for a question from the last slide:

Q1 - Matt
Q2 - Cecina
Q3 - Kory
Q4 - Michael 

]]> 2020-04-09 18:07:23 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/501063699 Question 2 cecinacrabtree https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503205733 The differences between the prior art and the invention would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. 

The main difference between the 2D puzzle and invention are the dimensions. The 2D puzzle is flat and easily taken apart. The 2D puzzle pieces are flat and put together on a flat surface. The invention can be taken apart and put together while being held off a surface. Another difference is the appearance of the puzzle that allows one to see how to put the pieces back together. 2D puzzles typically have some type of picture that you are putting together.

The difference between the working prototype and invention is the durability. The invention is wood that is durable and allows someone pull apart and put together the pieces with confidence that the pieces will not break easily. The working prototype was not as durable. It was made out of paper with magnets and would have to be handled gently. The function of the working prototype and the invention do not differ.

The difference between the Gustafson patent and invention is the shape. These two inventions are similar because they both are 3D and have a similar purpose. The shape of the two puzzles are different. Gustafson's puzzle is globe shape while Nichols' puzzle is square shape. The way the puzzle is taken apart and put together is also different because of the difference shapes.

The differences between the Hungarian puzzle and invention are the shape and purpose of the puzzle. While both puzzles are square, the Hungarian puzzle is a hollow box. Nichols' puzzle is square too, but it is not hollow. The pieces of the puzzle are solid and create a solid square when put together.

I would say Nichols' puzzle is most similar to Gustafson's puzzle. As an ordinary person, I could see these two puzzles being confused with each other. ]]> 2020-04-12 00:02:46 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503205733 Q3 Person of Ordinary Skill katcuson https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503689610 The US Patent and Trademark’s Summary of the relevant case law, if you are interested, is:

[The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) “type of problems encountered in the art;” (2) “prior art solutions to those problems;” (3) “rapidity with which innovations are made;” (4) “sophistication of the technology; and” (5) “educational level of active workers in the field." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id. See also Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indust., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.]

(There are more summaries of relevant Section 103 materials, if you are interested)

In examining the whole question, a foundational question is what is a person of ordinary skill in the art of puzzles. The circular answer is one that makes puzzles would be of ordinary skill in the art. Perhaps the strongest justification for difference is the 2D puzzle jumping to 3D.  If everyone else was making different versions of 2D puzzles and suddenly someone one person comes up with 3D, it’s absence before dictates that a person of ordinary skill hadn’t come up with it. The difficulty arises between different versions of 3D puzzles, do they require different skill sets? Does one 3D puzzle have elements that are outside the regular skills of another 3D puzzle maker? Given the facts I am uncertain.
]]> 2020-04-12 18:18:48 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503689610 q1 answer koppmatthew https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503807264 2d puzzle - The improvements from the 2d puzzle to 2x2x2 cube toy were not obvious. First, the 2d puzzle is not likely a pertinent prior art. While they are both in the field of puzzle toys, the gasoline gel case tells us that merely being in the same broad field is not enough to be pertinent. In that case, one gel's application in oil extraction was different enough from gel used in storage of refined fuel to take it out of pertinent territory. The 2d and 2x2x2 cube solve the same problem of posing a fun challenge to its user in entirely different ways. Even if more strict standards like the now abandoned TSM were used, the 2d puzzle does little to guide a phosita to creating the new invention.

Gustafson globe - The globe is likely a pertinent prior art here. Both are 3d puzzle games that share dimensions. However, as I commented last week, the gustafson globe does not use rotation and operates using interlocking pieces (https://www.brilliantpuzzles.com/rolling_globe_3d_wooden_puzzle_brain_teaser.html) compared to a rotating core of the cube toy (https://i.redd.it/r37vu6v3dsg01.jpg). There is simply nothing in the prior art that would lead a phosita to make that leap.

]]> 2020-04-12 22:03:57 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503807264 Secondary Considerations mschmidt110 https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503889409 Secondary considerations can be used to show the non-obviousness of an invention over the prior art when the claims are rejected under 103.
The 3 considerations from case law are typically referred to as: 1) commercial success, 2) long felt but unsolved need, and 3)failure of others.
These arguments may allow an inventor to overcome the obviousness rejection.
Here, we have little data on the commercial success of the Nichols puzzle, but the rubiks cube was wildly successful and arguably the similarity between the products could impute the rubiks success to the nichols puzzle, weighing in favor of non-obviousness.
as to the other 2 considerations we have little to no evidence that others tried to solve the problem that the nichols puzzle solves, nor the long felt need that it may fill. As the purpose of this invention is recreational it would be hard to argue such a need. 
Therefore the best arguements in defeating an obviousness claim in terms of secondary consideration would be to try and impute the rubiks success to the nichols puzzle and hope for a finding of infringment.]]> 2020-04-13 00:49:30 UTC https://padlet.com/koppmatthew/l2rhf17o5n7dz469/wish/503889409