A Single Prior Art Reference Can Render a Patent Obvious
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC.
Before Prost, Lourie, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Summary: A single prior art reference can render a patent obvious if it would have been obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the claimed invention.
Game and Technology Co., Ltd. (“GAT”) owns a patent directed to a method of customizing internet game characters in online games. Activision sought inter partes review of the patent as obvious in view of two prior art references, a video game manual and a patent publication. The PTAB determined that the challenged claims were obvious over the video game manual alone or combined with the patent publication. GAT appealed, challenging the determination of obviousness and the claim construction of the terms “gamvatar” and “layers.”
GAT argued on appeal that a single reference cannot support a finding of obviousness. The Federal Circuit rejected this as a matter of law because a patent can be obvious in light of a single prior art reference if it would have been obvious to modify that reference. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the PTAB’s construction of the terms “gamvatar” and “layers.” The Federal Circuit noted that the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis, and that the specification supports the PTAB’s construction.
Editor: Paul Stewart
Written by: Mark Rubinstein, Ph.D. & Kendall Loebbaka
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…