CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
By Eugene Lisovskiy - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=83501966

Federal Circuit Finds “Obvious” Solution Not Patentable

Patent rejected
Because it’s too obvious –
Federal Circuit

Software-related patents are often rejected based on 35 U.S. Code § 101. Software often fails to qualify for patentability under § 101 because the claimed invention is merely an abstract idea performed by a computer.

However, in a recent case the Federal Circuit found a claimed software invention unpatentable because it was obvious.

Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc. arose out of an appeal from a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

X One owned a patent for a “Buddy Watch application” that allows a mobile device user to add other mobile device users to her “Buddy List” and then see the locations of her buddies displayed on a map.

Uber sought inter partes review to invalidate the patent.

Under 35 U.S. Code § 103,

A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.

As the US Supreme Court noted, “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”

In this case, according to the Federal Circuit,

The difference between server-side plotting and terminal-side plotting amounts to a design choice between whether to plot locations before transmitting location information (server-side plotting) or after transmitting location information (terminal-side plotting). A person of ordinary skill would therefore have two predictable choices for when to perform plotting, providing them with a simple design choice as to whether to plot server-side or terminal-side.

Thus, the court found that the PTAB had erred in not finding that aspect of the claimed invention obvious.


Just like the haiku above, we like to keep our posts short and sweet. Hopefully, you found this bite-sized information helpful. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us here.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854