Final Written Decision Finding Some Claims Not Unpatentable For Use of Non-Analogous Art IPR2014-01079

LinkedInTwitterFacebookGoogle+Share

Takeaway: A petitioner must show that references are analogous art to be usable in an obviousness challenge by showing that the reference is either in the field of endeavor of the challenged patent or reasonably pertinent to the problem of the challenged patent such that the reference logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-16, 20, and 21 of the ’949 patent are unpatentable as anticipated, but had not demonstrated that claims 2, 4, 10, 11 ,17, and 25 are unpatentable. The ’949 patent relates to “a variable movement headrest arrangement for providing support to the head of an occupant of a vehicle upon vehicle impact.” Continue reading

Final Written Decision Finding Non-Analogous Art IPR2014-00367

Finding No Claim Unpatentable

Takeaway: A prior art reference in a separate field of endeavor will be found to be non-analogous art unless it is pertinent to the entire problem being solved by the challenged patent.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims of the ’561 patent are unpatentable. Also, the Board dismissed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Continue reading