Transcript Obviousness - JurisDiction

Obviousness
2012
Donald M. Cameron
What’s a patentable invention need to be?
• New
• Useful
• Inventive
• Judge made
• An 1890 judge-made addition to patentability
• 1936: SCC required “a degree of ingenuity” to be present
• Now in the Patent Act
• “plain as day”, “crystal clear”
2
Hard to express a test
for obviousness/inventiveness
What it is
• “proper subject matter” – an “invention”, inventive
• Obvious, very plain, plain as day, crystal clear
The Quantum
• an inventive step
• a “scintilla” of invention
The Path to get it/there
• Directly and without difficulty (but lack of difficulty doesn’t mean it’s obvious)
• Out of track with what was known at the time
The mind it comes from, or doesn’t
• Inventive: the product of an inventive mind
• Obvious: the product of a non-inventive mind
3
Hugesson J.A. in Beloit – Would any idiot have
come up with it, directly and without difficulty?
"The test for obviousness is not to ask what competent inventors did
or would have done to solve the problem. Inventors are by definition
inventive.”
"The classical touchstone for obviousness is the technician skilled
in the art but having no scintilla of inventiveness or imagination; a
paragon of deduction and dexterity, wholly devoid of intuition; a
triumph of the left hemisphere over the right. The question to be
asked is whether this mythical creature (the man in the Clapham
omnibus of patent law) would, in the light of the state of the art and
of common general knowledge as at the claimed date of invention,
have come directly and without difficulty to the solution taught
by the patent.”
4
Beware of formulae: obvious just means
obvious
• House of Lords in General Tire:
• “We agree, however, with what was said by Diplock, L.J. (as
he then was) and Willmer, L.J. in the Johns-Manville case
[1967] R.P.C. 478 at 493 and 496 deprecating “coining”
phrases which may later be suggested to be of general
application. “Obvious” is, after all, a much-used word and
it does not seem to us that there is any need to go beyond
the primary dictionary meaning of “very plain”.”
5
Venn diagrams/Fences: the sunspot analogy
6
The sunspot analogy, cont’d
• Key:
• Black “umbra”: what’s old
• Dark aura “penumbra”:
what’s obvious
• Yellow: what’s inventive
• Outside the picture: what’s
not “adjacently possible”
(what’s impossible: can’t
be done, yet)
7
The “Inventive Step”
8
New
• It’s been done/taught before,
in one place
Inventive
• Hasn’t been done before but
anyone could have done it
• Can mosiac
Explaining the difference – How many coins?
9
The Scientific Method & Experiments
10
The Right Approach
(according to Sanofi)
Windsurfing/Pozzoli
Windsurfing case, as updated in Pozzoli
(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 cannot readily be
done, construe it;
(3) Identify what, if any, differences exist 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?
12
Obviousness
13
when experiments drive
innovation
Plodders get patents too
“Very few inventions are unexpected discoveries. Practically all research work is
done by looking in directions where the “state of the art” points. On that basis and
with hindsight, it could be said in most cases that there was no inventive ingenuity
in the new development because everyone would then see how the previous
accomplishments pointed the way. The discovery of penicillin was, of course, a
major development, a great invention. After that, a number of workers went looking
for other antibiotics methodically testing whole families of various microorganisms
other than penicillum noatum. This research work was rewarded by the
discoveries a number of antibiotics such as chloromycetin obtained from
streptomyces venezuelae as mentioned in Laboratoire Pentagone v. Parke, Davis
& Co. [1968] R.C.S. 307, tetracycline as mentioned in American Cyanamid Co. v.
Berk Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 231 where Whitford J. said (at p. 257):
“A patient searcher is as much entitled to the benefits of a monopoly as someone
who hits upon an invention by some lucky chance or inspiration.”
Farbwerke Hoechst v. Halocarbon (Ontario) Limited et al (1979), 42 C.P.R. (2d) 145 (S.C.C. per
Pigeon J.), at paras. 33-35.
15
Iterative drug design
• If this works, tweak it a
little and try that
• and so on
• and so on
• and so on
16
So when do experiments result in obvious
results?
• On the one hand:
“It is enough that the
person versed in the art
would assess the
likelihood of success as
sufficient to warrant
actual trial”.
Johns-Manville Corporation’s Patent
[1967] RPC 479 (per Lord Diplock) at
495 – the UK “worth a try” test
17
• On the other hand:
“Practically all research
work is done by looking
in directions where the
“state of the art” points.”
Farbwerke Hoechst
Experiments
• Two kinds of experiments:
• Ones where you already know the answer
• Ones where you don’t know the answer
18
Experiments where you already know the
answer
• It’s been done before
• You’ve done it before
• good experiments are repeatable
• You’ve learned from others
• good experiments are repeatable
AND
• It’s highly likely to happen again
• The sun will rise tomorrow
• Apples fall from trees
19
Experiments where you already know the
answer
= confirmatory experiments
• Should not be entitled to a patent.
• You haven’t really contributed anything new
• The solution is obvious.
20
Experiments where you don’t know the answer
• If you don’t know, you do research to find out the answer.
• Trial and error
• If you have errors, you went the wrong way
• Therefore the right way wasn’t obvious or you would have
done that first
• Long recognized to be a legitimate route to a patentable
invention
• Hoescht: once penicillin discovered, try other microorganisms.
That begat chloromycetin and tetracyclin – patentable
• American Cyanamid: “a patient searcher is as much entitled
to the benefits of a monopoly as someone who hits upon an
invention by some lucky chance or inspriation”
21
Experiments where you don’t know the answer
• How well can you predict the outcome?
Guessing…………………….Likely…………….Highly Certain
Coin Toss…………Pen at Reception Desk…Sunrise tomorrow
• They’ll tend to polarize to either end of the spectrum
22
Obvious to Try or Worth a Try
• Obvious to try
• The microorganisms after penicillin discovered
• Not determinative: May be obvious, but may not.
• Worth a try … but if uncertain of result, it can’t be obvious
23
Experiments when you know an answer’s there
• Question: Where are my glasses?
• Usual Answer: Look in the obvious places
• Where did you last see them?
• Where were you last?
24
An expected result
• Which is the sharpest knife in the drawer?
• One is.
• Measure by routine testing
• Should the identification of the sharpest knife be
patentable?
• Probably not – you’re confirming what’s is a given
• What if it’s really sharp? Surprisingly sharper than the
rest?
25
An expected result
• What is it’s melting point?
• Merely measuring a physical characteristic
• You’re just observing – that’s science
• Find me an application and that might be patentable.
26
A bump in the road
Would require “undue experimentation”
• IKEA furniture
• It can be done, but it’s not always easy
• To implement an invention after reading a patent, you
may have to play around with it a bit
• Patent is supposed to be “enabling’ – disclose what you
need to know to make it work
• If it took “undue experimentation” to implement, the
disclosure is lacking
• Converse adopted: if there wasn’t undue experimentation
to make it, it’s obvious.
28
The easy ones
An unexpected result
• “Surprise, surprise”
30
Going the wrong way
• Doing things backwards resulted in a patented process.
31
Led Directly and Without Difficulty
• Reality check: How hard was it for the inventor?
• If circuitous, it wasn’t obvious to the inventor
• If easy, may or may not be inventive
32
“a mere application of mechanical skill does
not make you an inventor”
• Corn flakes case:
• Q.: Is the first person to do it an inventor?
• A.: Not if he was just the technician working the machine.
• Over-transmogrified into: If its merely an exercise of
mechanical skills, there’s no invention.
33
Other indicia of inventiveness
• If it’s “wow” – it’s probably an invention
• If creative people say, “I was there and I never thought of
it” – it’s probably inventive
34
Summary
• If you can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4, it’s
obvious
• If you don’t know the answer/solution and have to do
research (even if by pedestrian means), it’s not obvious
35
News from the South: KSR
KSR – US Supreme Court
• Adjustable car pedal for drivers of different heights
• Sensor that controlled throttle, etc.
• Sensor attached to a fixed pivot point
• Prior art:
• A+B
• A+C
• B+C
• Invention A+B+C
37
KSR
• TSM:
• Teaching
• Suggestion
• Motivation
• “a patent claim is only proved obvious if ‘some motivation
or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings’ can be
found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the
knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.”
38
KSR
• TSM is not a rigid rule – your don’t have to have it in
every case in order to find obviousness
• Instead, you start with where things were and ask if it
was obvious to go to the invention:
• “The Court of Appeals considered the issue too narrowly
by, in effect, asking whether a pedal designer writing on a
blank slate would have chosen …”
• “The consequent legal question, then, is whether a pedal
designer of ordinary skill starting with Asano would have
found it obvious to put the sensor on a fixed pivot point.”
39
KSR – “Predictable results”
• “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no
more than yield predictable results.”
• “… when a patent claims a structure already known in the
prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.”
• “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”
40
KSR – “Predictable solutions”
• “… a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.”
• “Where there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
skill has good reason to pursue the known options within
his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated
success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense.”
41
KSR – some weird stuff
• “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity.”
• “And as progress beginning from higher levels of
achievement is expected in the normal course, the result
of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive
rights under the patent law.”
• What the heck is “ordinary creativity” or “ordinary
innovation”?
• OK if: Creating something new but non-inventive?
42
KSR – weird stuff
• “The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal
designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs
created by developments in the field of endeavor, would
have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor.”
• What triggers the vision?
• Surely doesn’t mean you ask the notional person, “Would
you see a benefit doing this upgrade?
• That’s a leading question inventors are never asked.
• OK if: Where were we? Where was obvious to go from
there?
43
KSR – weird stuff
• Synergy: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
• THERE’S NO SUCH THING!!!!!
• a “patent for a combination which only unites old
elements with no change in their respective functions
… obviously withdraws what is already known into the
fiield of its monopoly and dimishes the resources
available to skillful men”
• Stuff just does what it does … but you can have a new
result – example – the sailboard
44
St. Gobain (2005)
Predictability from UK
45
“Worth a try” test gets buried
• “Mere possible inclusion of something within a research
programme on the basis you will find out more and
something might turn up is not enough. If it were
otherwise there would be few inventions that were
patentable. The only research which would be worthwhile
(because of the prospect of protection) would be into
areas totally devoid of prospect. The “obvious to try”
test really only works where it is more or less selfevident that what is being tested ought to work.”
Saint-Gobain PAM SA v. Fusion Provida Ltd., [2005] EWCA
Civ 177 at para. 35 (per Lord Jacob).
46
Sanofi
If something is worth trying, is it obvious?
• UK Johns-Manville 1967 Diplock L.J.:
• It’s obvious if it is:
• “obvious to try” and
• “It is enough that the person versed in the art would assess
the likelihood of success as sufficient to warrant actual
trial...”
• 1972 Technograph case Sach L.J.:
• “He would be expected to try out all obvious modifications
or combinations of these methods which seemed to him
worth trying."
48
1974 Hoechst F.C.T.D. – obvious if you could
predict success
• Collier J.:
• "Mr. Sim sparred at some length with Dr. Schmutzler, pressing and
exploring the hypothesis that the liquid phase process was, to a skilled
person, "worth a try". Using the magnifying spectacles of hind-sight
(a half borrowed phrase), it is easy to say that any experiment, if
time and expense are unlimited … is or was worth a try."
• “Using a paraphrase of the “Cripps question”: Was it for all practical
purposes obvious to any skilled chemist in the state of chemical
knowledge existing at the date of the invention, which consists of the
chemical literature available and his general knowledge, particularly in
the filed of fluorine chemistry, that he would successfully produce
isohalothane (assuming the monomer used here and the hydrogen
bromide) in the liquid phase? …
49
Hoescht FCA: success doesn’t have to be
predicted
• Federal Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J.:
• “The learned trial judge appears to have proceeded upon the
assumption that the requirement of “inventive ingenuity”, is satisfied
unless the “state of the art” at the time of the alleged invention was
such that it would have been obvious to any skilled chemist “that
he would successfully produce isohalothane (assuming the
monomer used here and hydrogen bromide) in the ‘liquid phase’.”
(The italics are mine.) I do not think that the learned trial judge’s
assumption is correct as a universal rule. I would not hazard a
definition of what is involved in the requirement of “inventive ingenuity:
but, as it seems to me, the requirement of “inventive ingenuity”, is
not met in a the circumstances of the claim in question where the
“state of the art” points to a process and all the alleged inventor
has done is ascertain whether or not the process will work
successfully.”
50
1979 Hoechst SCC
• In my view this statement of the requirement of inventive ingenuity
puts it much too high. Very few inventions are unexpected discoveries.
Practically all research work is done by looking in directions where
the “state of the art” points. On that basis and with hindsight, it could be
said in most cases that there was no inventive ingenuity in the new
development because everyone would then see how the previous
accomplishments pointed the way. The discovery of penicillin was, of
course, a major development, a great invention. After that, a number
of workers went looking for other antibiotics methodically testing
whole families of various microorganisms other than penicillum
noatum. This research work was rewarded by the discoveries a
number of antibiotics such as chloromycetin obtained from
streptomyces venezuelae as mentioned in Laboratoire Pentagone v.
Parke, Davis & Co. [1968] R.C.S. 307, tetracycline as mentioned in
American Cyanamid Co. v. Berk Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 231
where Whitford J. said (at p. 257):
“A patient searcher is as much entitled to the benefits of a monopoly
as someone who hits upon an invention by some lucky chance or
inspiration.”
51
Predictability of success
1977: UK
JohnsManville
“obvious to try”
obvious if worth
trying
0%
52
USA
“reasonable
expectation
of success”
1979
Hoechst
obvious if
can predict
success
100%
Canadian case law develops
• If any research (learning something new) is needed, the
invention is not obvious
• “Undue experimentation”
• renders a discovery non-obvious
• less than undue experimentation makes it obvious
• If the result of the experimental is highly predictable or
the result expected (the experiment is confirmatory rather
than exploratory), then the result is obvious.
53
2005 UK “obvious to try” test moves
• Saint-Gobain PAM SA v. Fusion Provida Ltd. per Jacob:
• “Mere possible inclusion of something within a research
programme on the basis you will find out more and
something might turn up is not enough. If it were otherwise
there would be few inventions that were patentable. The
only research which would be worthwhile (because of the
prospect of protection) would be into areas totally devoid of
prospect. The “obvious to try” test really only works
where it is more or less self-evident that what is being
tested ought to work.”
54
Predictability of success
1977: UK
JohnsManville
“obvious to try” =
enough to try a trial
0%
55
USA
“reasonable
expectation
of success”
2005: SaintGobain
“ought to
work”
1979
Hoechst
success
100%
2007 USA KSR decision
• Rejected CAFC’s restrictive TSM test
• Teaching
• Suggestion
• Motivation
• “Consider everything” approach, including “obvious to try”:
“The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in
error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing
that the combination of elements was “obvious to try”. ... When there is
a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In
that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show
that it was obvious under §103.”
56
Rothstein in Sanofi
“It is now clear that both jurisdictions accept that an
“obvious to try” test can be relevant in an obviousness
inquiry. The United States Supreme Court has now
stated so explicitly in KSR. The convergence of the
United Kingdom and the United States law on this issue
suggests that the restrictiveness with which the Beloit
test has been interpreted in Canada should be reexamined.”
57
Obviousness – the Sanofi test
(Windsurfing redux)
(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
cannot readily be done, construe it;
(3) Identify what, if any, differences exist 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?
58
“Obvious to try” test
– for cases involving experimentation
• “Obvious to try” test
• Could be part of step #4 in cases “where advances are won by
experimentation”
• Rothstein’s Questions:
• (1) Is it more or less self-evident that what is being tried ought to work?
Are there a finite number of identified predictable solutions known to
persons skilled in the art?
• (2) What is the extent, nature and amount of effort required to achieve
the invention? Are routine trials carried out or is the experimentation
prolonged and arduous, such that the trials would not be considered
routine? The path followed by the inventor(s) is worth examining.
• (3) Is there a motive provided in the prior art to find the solution the
patent addresses?
59
Obviousness
• Rothstein’s Questions (redux):
• (3) What was the motive?
• To try? To combine those references?
• (2) How easy was it for the inventor(s)?
• Prolonged and arduous (inventive) vs. “routine” (obvious)
• (1) Was it predictably successful?
• Was it“ more or less self-evident” that it “ought to work”?
• Were there a finite number of identified predictable solutions?
60
(3) What was the motive?
• Marketplace was searching for an effective, non-toxic
product
• [How does that make it obvious?
• [More likely to make it non-obvious if everyone was looking
and nobody found it]
• The genus patent did not provide a specific motivation to
pursue the right handed enantiomer.
61
(2) How easy was it for the inventor(s)?
• What was known:
• Separation methods
• Methods of testing properties
• Finite number of salts
• But the inventor took 5 months
• That’s prolonged and arduous (inventive) vs. “routine”
(obvious)?
• [That’s a new definition for “routine”.]
62
(1) Was it predictably successful?
• Was it “more or less self-evident” that it “ought to work”?
• (Were there a finite number of identified predictable solutions)
• Skilled person would not have known:
• before separating the racemate into the two isomers and testing them,
that the properties of the right-handed isomer would be different than
the properties of the racemate or the left-handed isomer;
• the relative advantage of the right-handed isomer;
• what to select or omit from the genus patent was not self-evident;
• before trying the salts in combination with the right-handed isomer,
what the bisulfate salt’s beneficial properties would be;
• the right-handed isomer ought to work.
Therefore, the right-handed enantiomer salt was not obvious.
63
Obviousness
2012
Donald M. Cameron