tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post849731360610848781..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: "Obvious to try" is obviously not obviousVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40075514104498292662012-01-18T12:24:30.409+00:002012-01-18T12:24:30.409+00:00I think J-M would today go the other way, because ...I think J-M would today go the other way, because of the Conor Decision in the House of Lords. I think Conor went the way it did because Lord Hoffmann was at pains to be a good European, by complying with the EPO jurisprudence on Art 56 EPC. The trend strengthened, aggravated, with the recent HL Art 52 EPC decision in HGS.<br /><br />Note how, in both Conor and HGS, the HL reversed unanimous views of very senior patents judges in EWCA.<br /><br />Will all this complying at the highest level bring the Central Division to London. It should, but i doubt it will.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39067726906383373002012-01-18T12:18:20.073+00:002012-01-18T12:18:20.073+00:00My comment has not reached its destination. Is the...My comment has not reached its destination. Is there a lost property office for all of those missing Ipkat comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9093258374695956432012-01-18T10:53:56.529+00:002012-01-18T10:53:56.529+00:00The "obvious" influence of the EPO appro...The "obvious" influence of the EPO approach is appearent in this case, which, to my view, is a good sign.<br />This question is very much attached to the so-called "unpredictable arts", like e.g. chemistry and biotechnology, i.e. art where, whatever the likelyhood that something will happen, there exist many exemples showing the skilled person that it can also happen differently. And, in such arts, it is a fact that only experimentation can show if it does work or not. And usually, for one solution working, ten tested alternatives have not worked.<br />Looking at such inventions under an obvious to try approach without considering the reasonable expectation of success generally amounts at looking at the invention with hindsight, which is what examiners and judges should refrain to do when assessing inventive step.Lyonnaisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67207230725483627412012-01-17T09:42:33.114+00:002012-01-17T09:42:33.114+00:00Is it relevant to obviousness, how long it took to...Is it relevant to obviousness, how long it took to invent the spot on product formulation, after the spray on product formulation proved successful in the market? Here it was 12 months ie more or less instantaneously. What if it had been 3 years?<br /><br />Calls to my mind the recent Jacob LJ case, where something was obvious, but then with the passage of time became unobvious.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40544032591642304342012-01-17T08:19:09.703+00:002012-01-17T08:19:09.703+00:00Should one not ask for whom it may have been obvio...Should one not ask for whom it may have been obvious? If a more complicated product is on the market it would suggest to others that simple solutions might not work, otherwise the first company would have done so. In other words a bit of prejudice against trying has been brought in. After all it was neither in the market nor in the patent application.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43635840450821067822012-01-17T07:53:05.691+00:002012-01-17T07:53:05.691+00:00At least I'm not the only one who struggles wi...At least I'm not the only one who struggles with the concept of an "invention" coming into being without the "inventor" actually having done anything that was not obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com