HEINONLINE
`
`Citation: 79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 889 1997
`Provided by:
`
`Content downloaded/printed from
`
`HeinOnline (http://heinon|ine.org)
`Wed Feb 10 12:03:19 2016
`
`—— Your use of this HeinOn|ine PDF indicates your acceptance
`of HeinOn|ine's Terms and Conditions of the license
`
`agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
`
`-- The search text of this PDF is generated from
`uncorrected OCR text.
`
`—— To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope
`of your HeinOn|ine license, please use:
`
`https://wwwcopyright.com/ccc/basicsearch.do?
`&operation=go&searchType=0
`&lastSearch=simpie&all=on&titleOrStdNo=O882—9098
`
`Apple |nc., Exhibit 1075, Page 1
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 1
`
`

`
`ANNUAL INDEXES
`
`INDEX BY AUTHOR NAME
`JOURNAL OF THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK. OFFICE SOCIETY
`VOLUME 79
`1997
`
`_A_
`
`Adamo, Kenneth R.
`Waiting at the (Patent) Bar is Over - The Supreme Court Decides Hilton Davis ..... .. 79-43I
`Ansems, Gregory M.
`‘
`Hilton Davis: The Doctrine of Equivalents Survives - Now What? (& McDonald;
`Pollinger) ............................................................................... .. 79-309
`
`_}3_
`
`Baht, Robert W.
`Major Changes to Patent Rules (& Bernstein) .......................................... .. 79-I577
`Bain, Scott E.
`Intellectual Property and Privacy Issues on the Internet (& McDonald; Reich) ....... .. 79-3|
`Barry, Lance Leonard
`Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching Away ................................................ .. 79-867
`Bernstein, Hiram H.
`,
`Major Changes to Patent Rules (& BaI1.r) . . . . . . . . . . .
`Blasko, John P.
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law (&
`Eldering, Brown) ....................................................................... .. 79-79]
`Bolan, Robert O.
`The Official Gazette and Willful Patent Infringement: Sfryker Corp. v. lrtrermedics Or-
`thopedics, Inc. (& Rooklidge) . . . . . . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .. 79-605
`Bresnick, Sandra A.
`Right to a Jury Trial in Actions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act (3.: Coggio) .......... .. 79-765
`Brown, Abbe E.L.
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law (&
`Eidering; Blaslco) ....................................................................... .. 79-791
`Brown, Brian W.
`-
`Patent Cooperation,Trcaty (PCT) National Stage Commencement and Entry in the
`United States of America .............................................................. .. 79-296
`
`. . .
`
`. . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . . .
`
`. . . . .
`
`. . .
`
`. . . . . . . .
`
`.
`
`. . .. 79-677
`
`_C_I
`
`-
`Casey, Kevin R.
`Means Plus Function Claims Afier Mm-kman: ls Claim Construction Under 35 U.S.C.
`I12, 116 A Question of Fact or An Issue of Law? .................................... .. 79-841
`Clark, Joseph E.
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output (Part I Macro
`Comparisons at the Country Level (& Roy; Tuch) ................................... .. 79-I10
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output Part 2- Cross
`Country Comparisons at the Industry Sector Level ................................... .. 79-I57
`Coggio, Brian 1).
`Right to a Jury Trial in Actions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act (& Bresnick) ........ .. 79-765
`Cottone, James F.
`Online Patent Searching; :1 Good News Story, but not the Whole Story............... .. 79-233
`
`889
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 2
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 2
`
`

`
`Annual Indexes
`
`_1)_
`
`Daley-Watson, Christopher J.
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other On-Line Publishers (Part I) (& Ferron, Jr.; Kiklis) ....................... .. 79-5
`On-Line Copyright Issues. Recent Ca se Law and Legislative Changes Aitecting Inter-
`net and Other On-Line Publishers (Part II) (& Ferron, Jr.; Kjklis) .................. .. 79-83
`Dewitt, Timothy R.
`Use of Objective Evidence of Non—0bviousness in the Federal Courts ................ .. 79-823
`
`....[5.....
`
`Eldering, Charles A.
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law (&
`Blasko; Brown) ......................................................................... ..
`Eschweiler, Thomas G.
`. __
`.
`. _ . _ . . _ . _ .
`. _ . _ .
`. _ _ . _ . _ .
`. _ . _ . . _ .
`Ford v. Lemelson and Continuing Application Laches .
`Ford v. Lemelson and Continuing Application Lachcs Revisited ....................... ..
`
`.__}=_
`
`Ferron, Jr., William O.
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other On-Line Publishers (P art 1) (& Daley-Watson; Kiklis) .................. .. 79-5
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other On-Line Publishers (Part II) (& Daley-Watson; Kiklis) .................. .. 79-83
`
`_G__
`
`Gholz, Charles L.
`A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent lnterferences ......... .. 79-271
`Proposed Changes to the Interference Rules ............................................. .. 79-555
`Gioia, Vincent G.
`Plant Patents - R.I.P....................................................................... .. 79-516
`
`_H_
`
`Hoeffner, Patrick J.
`Compilations and the AFC Test .......................................................... .. 79-140
`Hoover, Allen B.
`Further Comments on PCTIUSA National Phase Applications and Section l02{e)
`Dates .................................................................................... .. 79-643
`
`__5(_
`
`. . . . . . . .
`
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Kelly, Don
`Book Review . . . . . . . . . .
`Kiklis, Michael J.
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other O-n-Line Publishers (Part I) (8: Daley-Watson; Ferron] .................. .. 79-5
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Ca se Law and Legislative Changes Afiecting Inter-
`net and Other On—Linc Publishers (Part II) (& Daley-Watson; Fe-tron) ............. .. 79-83
`Knight, G. Lloyd
`It's Time to Stop Discriminating Against PCT/USA National Phase Patents .......... .. 79-385
`Kurati, Yasuyuki
`Introduction to the Japanese Patent Office Society ...................................... .. 79-550
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . . .
`
`. . . . .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . . . . . . . .. 79-98
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 3
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 3
`
`

`
`December 1997
`
`Annual Indexes
`
`_L_
`
`Lee, Eric M.
`35 U.S.C. § 287(0) - The Physician Immunity Statute .................................. .. 79-701
`Lau, Michael N.
`The Patent Law of Hong Kong Post 1997, afier Hong Kong is Reverted Back to the
`People's Republic of China ............................................................ .. 79-258
`
`_M_
`
`Markarian, James M.
`Can the Marking Requirements for a Patented Article be Circumvented by Obtaining a
`Process Patent? ......................................................................... .. 79-365
`Mason, J. Derek
`Economic Espionage Act: A New Federal Regime of Trade Secret Protection (& Mos-
`singhofi’; Oblon)........................................................................ .. 79-191
`McDonald, Daniel W.
`Hilton Davis: The Doctrine of Equivalents Survives — Now What‘? (& Pollinger;
`Anserns) ................................................................................ .. 79-309
`Intellectual Property and Privacy issues on the Internet (& Bain & Reich) ........... .. 79-31
`Meller, Michael N.
`Costs are Killing Patent Harmonization.................................................. .. 79-211
`Mills, III, John Gladstone
`Entertainment on the Internet: First Amendment and Copyright Issues ................ .. 79-461
`Mossinghofi, Gerald J.
`Economic Espionage Act: A New Federal Regime of ‘Trade Secret Protection (& Mason;
`Ohlon) ........ ..j........................................................................ .. 79-I91
`The World Intellectual Property Organize tion: a United Nations Success Story (&
`Oman) ........
`........................................................................ .. 79-691
`.
`Mueller, Janice M.
`Crafling Patents for the Twenty First Century: Maximize Patent Strength and Avoid
`Prosecution History Estoppel in a Post- Markrnan/Hilton-Davis World ............. .. 79-499
`
`_Q._..-
`
`Oblon, David A.
`Economic Espionage Act: A New Federal Regime of Trade Secret Protection (& Mos-
`singhoff; Mason) ....................................................................... ..
`Oman, Ralph
`'
`The World Intellectual Property Organization: a United Nations Success Story (8.:
`Mossinghoft)
`........................................................................ ..
`
`__p_
`
`Pitliek, Harris A.
`Looking Beyond the Blazemarks on Trees - It's time to Revisit the Description Re-
`quirement in the Wake of Warner-Jenkinson ......................................... .. 79-625
`Pollinger, Steven J.
`'
`Hilton Davis: The Doctrine of Equivalents Survives - Now What? (8.: Pollinger;
`Ansems) ................................................................................ .. 79-309
`
`._R_
`
`Radomslty, Leon
`Can Process Claims That Include New and Unobvious Product Limitations Still be
`Obvious alter In re Ochiai ...................
`........................................ .. 79-S67
`Reich, John C.
`Intellectual Property and Privacy Issues on the Internet (& Bain; McDonald) ........ .. 79-3|
`Rivard, Paul M.
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 4
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 4
`
`

`
`892
`
`Annual Indexes
`
`JPTOS
`
`Protection of Business Investments in Human Capital: Shop Right and Related
`Doctrines . .
`. . .
`.
`. . .
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . . .
`.
`. . .
`. . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . .
`Rooklidge, William C.
`intcrmedics
`The Official Gazette and Willful Patent Infringement: Stryker Corp. v.
`Orthopedics, Inc. (& Bolan) ........................................................... .. 79-605
`Roy, Upendra
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D I nvestment and Economic Output (Part I Macro
`Comparisons at the Country Level (& Tuch; Clark) ................................. .. 79-] i0
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output Part 2- Cross
`Country Comparisons at the Industry Sector Level ................................... .. 79~l57
`
`. , .. 79-753
`
`_g_
`
`Samuels, Jeffrey M.
`Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice (& Samuels)................... .. 79-181
`Samuels, Linda B..
`Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice (& Sarnuels)................... .. 79—l8l
`Sartori, Michael A.
`An Economic Incentives Analysis of the .lury’.s Role in Patent Litigation ............. .. 79-33]
`Schaafsma, Paul E.
`An Economic Overview of Patents ...................................................... .. 79-24]
`Stoll, Thomas Leonard
`Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review .................................................. .. 79-100
`
`_'r¥
`
`Tessensohn, John A.
`The BBS Supreme Court Case - A Cloth too Short for an Obi & too Long for a Tasuki
`(Yamamoto) ............................................................................ ..
`Tueh, Robert D.
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output (Part I Macro
`Comparisons at the Country Level (& Roy, Clark] ................................... ..
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output Part 2- Cross
`Country Comparisons at the Industry Sector Level .
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`
`_w_
`
`Walterscheid, Edward C.
`To Promote the Progress of Useful Arts: American Patent Law and Administration,
`[787 - 1836 (Part I) .................................................................... ..
`The Winged Gudgeon - An Early Patent Controversy .................................. ..
`
`_Y_
`
`Yamamoto, Shusaku
`The BBS Supreme Court Case — A Cloth too Short for an Obi & too Long for a Tasuki
`(& Tessensohn) ......................................................................... .. 79-72l
`Y'Barbo, Douglas
`On the Patent Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit: A Few Simple Rules ............... .. 79-651
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 5
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 5
`
`

`
`December 1997
`
`Annual Indexes
`
`1997 INDEX BY TITLE AND TOPIC
`
`_A_
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`Protection of Business Investments in Human Capital: Shop Right and Related Doc-
`trines (Rivard) . .|. . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ..
`
`_B_
`
`BBS Supreme Court Case - A Cloth too Short for an Obi & too Long for a Tasuki (Tes-
`sensohn & Yamamoto) ..................................................................... ..
`Book Review ........ ..'. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . ..
`
`__{;fi
`
`Can Process Claims That Include New and Unobvious Product Limitations Still he Obvious
`aficr In re Ochiai (Radomsky) ............................................................. ..
`Can the Marking Requirements for a Patented Article be Circurnvented by Obtaining a
`Process Patent‘? (Marltarian) ................................................................ ..
`Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review (Stoll) ............................................... ..
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law (Elde-ring,
`Blasko & Brown)
`Compilations and the AFC Test (Hoeffner) .................................................. ..
`Costs are Killing Patent Harmonization (Meller) ............................................ ..
`Crafting Patents for the Twenty First Century: Maximize Patent Strength and Avoid Pros-
`ecution History Estoppel in a Post— Markrnan/l-Iilton-Davis World (Mueller) ........... ..
`Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences (Gholz) ....... ..
`
`_E_
`
`Economic Espionage Act: A New Federal Regime of Trade Secret Protection (Mossinghoff,
`Mason, &. Oblon) ........................................................................... ..
`Economic Overview of Patents (Schaafsma) ................................................. ..
`Economic Incentives Analysis of the .lury‘s Role in Patent Litigation (Sartori) ............ ..
`Entertainment on the Internet: First Amendment and Copyright Issues (Mills) ............ ..
`
`....}:_._
`
`Ford 1:. Lemelson and Continuing Application Laches (Eschweiler) ........................ .. 79-401
`Ford v. Lemelson and Continuing Application Laehes Revisited (Eschweiler) ............. .. 79-457
`FOREIGN LAWS
`The BBS Supreme Court Case - A Cloth too Short for an Obi &. too Long for a Tasuki
`(Yamamoto St Tessensohn) ............................................................ .. 79-72!
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law (Eld~
`ering, Blaslto & Brown) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. .. 79-79]
`Patent Law of Hong Kong Post 1997, after Hong Kong is Reverted Back to the People's
`Republic of China (Lau) ............................................................... .. 79-253
`Further Comments on PCT/USA National Phase Applications and Section l02(e) Dates
`(Hoover) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79-643
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 6
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 6
`
`

`
`Annual Indexes
`
`::_..(3"_,
`
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D Investment and Economic Output Part 1- Macro Com-
`parisons at the Country Level (Roy, Tuch, & Clark) ..................................... ..
`Global Assessment of Patents, R&D investment and Economic Output Part 2- Cross Country
`Comparisons at the Industry Sector Level (Roy, Tuch, & Clark) ........................ ..
`
`_.H_
`
`Hilton Davis: The Doctrine of Equivalents Survives - Now What? (McDonald, Follinger,
`Ansems) ..................................................................................... ..
`HISTORY
`Winged Gudgeon - An Early Patent Controversy (Walterscheid) ...................... ..
`
`_..1....
`
`Intellectual Property and Privacy Issues on the Internet (McDonald, Bain & Reich) ...... .. 79-31
`INFRINGEMENT
`Can the Marking Requirements for a Patented Article be Circumvented by Obtaining a
`Process Patent? (Markarian) .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .. 79-365
`The Official Gazette and Willful Patent Infringement: Stryker Corp. v. Intennedics‘ Or-
`thopedics, Inc. (Rooklidge &Bolan) ...........................................
`..... .. 79-605
`35 U.S.C. § 287(c) - The Physician Immunity Statute (Lee) . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79-701
`INTERFERENCE
`Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences (Gho1z)..... 79-271
`Proposed Changes to the Interference Rules (Gholz) . . . .
`. . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . .. 79-55
`INTERNET
`Entertainment on the Internet: First Amendment and Copyright Issues (Mills) ........ .. 79-461
`Intellectual Property and Privacy Issues on the Internet (McDonald, Bain & Reich) . . . .
`.
`. .. 79-31
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other On-Line Publishers (Part I) (Ferron, Daley-Watson & Kiklis) ........... .. 79-5
`On-Linc Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet
`and Other On-Line Publishers (Part II) (Ferron, Daley-Watson & Kiklis) .......... .. 79-83
`Online Patent Searching; a Good News Story, but not the Whole Story (Cottone)
`79-233
`Introduction to the Japanese Patent Office Society (Kurati) ................................. .. 79-550
`It's Time to Stop Discriminating Against PCT/USA National Phase Patents (Knight) ..... .. 79-385
`
`._...J.._
`
`JURISDICTION
`On the Patent Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit: A Few Simple Rules (Y'Barbo)
`IURY PRACTICE
`Economic Incentives Analysis of the Jury’s Role in Patent Litigation (Sartori) ....... .. 79-331
`The Right to a Jury Trial in Actions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act (Co ggio and
`Bresnick) ............................................................................... .. 79-765
`
`79-651
`
`_L_
`
`. . .. 79-27
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Letter to the Editor .
`Letter to the Editor ............................................................................ .. 79-151
`Letter to the Editor ............................................................................ .. 79-226
`Letter to the Editor .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . .. 79-374
`Letter to the Editor ............................................................................ .. 79-428
`Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . .. 79-883
`Looking Beyond die Blazemarks on Trees - It’s time to Revisit the Description Requirement
`in the Wake of Wamer-Jenkinson (Pitlick) ................................................ .. 79-625
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 7
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 7
`
`

`
`December 1997
`
`Annual Indexes
`
`_.M__
`
`Major Changes to Patent Rules (Bahr, Robert W. Bernstein) ............................... .. 79-677
`Means Plus Function Claims Afier Markman: ls Claim Construction Under 35 U.S.C. I12,
`fi[6 A Question of Fact or an Issue of Law? (Casey) . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . .
`.
`. .. 79-841
`
`__Q_
`
`Official Gazette and Willful Patent Infringement: Stryker Corp. v. lntermedics Orthopedics,
`Inc. (Bolart & Rooklidge) . . . . . _ . . . .
`. . . . .
`.
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . .
`.
`. . .
`. . . . . . _ .. 79-605
`On-Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet and
`Other On-Line Publishers (Part I) (Ferron, Daley-Watson & Kiklis) ..................... .. 79-S
`On—Line Copyright Issues, Recent Case Law and Legislative Changes Affecting Internet and
`Other On-Line Publishers (Part II) (Ferron, Daley-Watson & Kiltlis) .................... .. 79-83
`Online Patent Searching; a Good News Story, but not the Whole Story (Cottone) ........ .. 79-233
`On the Patent Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit: A Few Simple Rules (Y’Barbo) ........ .. 79-651
`Outstanding Service Award ................................................................... .. 79-364
`
`/p_
`
`PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
`Further Comments ‘on PCTIUSA National Phase Applications and Section 102(e) Dates
`(Hoover) ................................................................................ .. 79-643
`It's Time to Stop Discrirninating Against PCTIUSA National Phase Patents
`(Knight) . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . . . _ . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. .. 79-385
`Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) National Stage Commencement and Entry in the
`United States of America (Brown) .................................................... _. 79-296
`Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) National Stage Commencement and Entry in the United
`States of America (Brown) ................................................................. .. 79-296
`Patent Cooperation Treaty News .............................................................. .. 79-133
`Patent Cooperation Treaty News ...................................
`......................... .. 79-451
`Patent Cooperation Treaty News .............................................................. .. 79-553
`Patent Law of Hong Kong Post 1997, after Hong Kong is Reverted Back to the People’s
`Republic of China (Lau) .................................................................... .. 79-258
`Plant Patents - R.l.P. (Gioia) .................................................................. .. 79-515
`Promote the Progress of Useful Arts: American Patent Law and Administration, 1787 - 1836
`(Part 1) (Waltersheid) ....................................................................... .. 79-6|
`Proposed Changes to the Interference Rules (Gholz) ........................................ .. 79-555
`Protection of Business Investments in Human Capital: Shop Right and Related Doctrines
`(Rivard) ...................................................................................... .. 79-753
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS
`Comparative Analysis of Provisional Patent Applications under US and UK Law
`(Eldering, Blasko & Brown) . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . .
`
`. . . .. 79-791
`
`/R_
`
`Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice (Samuels & Samuels) ............. .. 79-181
`Right to a Jury Trial in Actions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act (Coggio and Bresnick)
`79-765
`
`_T_
`
`Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching Away (Barry) ............................................ .. 79-867
`35 U.S.C. § 287(c) - The Physician Immunity Statute (Lee, Eric M.) ...................... .. 79-701
`TRADEMARKS
`Recent Developments in Trademark Law and Practice (Sarnuels & Samuels) ......... .. 79-18!
`TRADE SECRETS
`'
`Economic Espionage Act: A New Federal Regime of Trade Secret Protection (Mos-
`singhoff, Mason, & Oblon) ............................................................ .. 79-191
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 8
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 8
`
`

`
`Annual Indexes
`
`_U___
`
`. . . .. 79-378
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . . . . . .
`. . .
`.
`. . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`UPOV News . . . . .
`. . . .. 79-866
`. . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . .
`.
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`UPOV News . . . . . . . .
`Use of Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness in the Federal Courts (Dewitt) .......... .. 79-823
`
`._w_
`
`Waiting at the (Patent) Bar is Over - The Supreme Court Decides Hiiton Davis (Adamo)
`
`Winged Gudgeon - An Early Patent Controversy (Walterscheid) ........................... .. 79-533
`World Intellectual Property Organization: a United Nations Success Story (Mossinghoff,
`Gerald J.&Oman) . . . .
`. . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .. 79-691
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 9
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching
`Away*
`
`Lance Leonard Barry**
`
`hen faced‘ with an obviousness rejection of a claim in a patent
`application, patent attorneys and agents commonly respond by
`arguing that one or more of the prior art references of record “teaches
`away” from a modification or combination relied on to reject
`the
`claim.‘ In effect they are arguing that the references would have dis-
`couraged one of ordinary skill in the art from making the modification
`or combination.’ The “teaching away argument”3 is also a common
`response when the presumed validity‘ of a patent is under attack in
`litigation} As such, it is imperative that patent attorneys, agents, and
`examiners understand what the courts have taught about the concept of
`teaching away.
`'
`
`‘ © I997, All Rights Reserved, Lance Leonard Barry, Esq. The opinions expressed herein are
`solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office (PTO). The author thanks Robert A. Weinhardt, a Primary Examiner in the
`PTO's Electrical Cluster, for sharing some thoughts on teaching away and William Watkins, Esq.,
`a Primary Examiner in the PTO‘s Group I300, for reviewing a drafl of this article.
`"‘ The author is an attorney licensed by the Virginia State Bar and working as an Electrical
`Engineering Primary Examiner in the Electrical Cluster of the PTO. He also lectures on obviousness
`at the PTO‘s Patent Academy. The author earned a J.D. degree fi'om the George Mason University
`School of Law, an M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins University, and a
`B.E.E. degree in electrical engineering from The Catholic University of America. Before joining
`the PTO, he was a Senior (Electrical) Engineer with Booz - Allen & Hamilton.
`I Robert W. Harris, Apparent Federal Circuit Standardsfor Weighing Nanobviousness Argumenl
`that Prior Art Reference Teaches Away from Prarent Invention, 70 J. PAT. OFF. Soc'Y 79, 79
`(I988). See. e.g..
`l PATENT PRACTICE 5-36 (PR1 1992) (instructing attorneys and agents that “[i]t
`is now, in everyday practice, unnecessary to submit rebuttal evidence when the reference used to
`reject the claim teaches away from the limitation. . . ."); DAVID ?RESSMAN, PATENT lr YOURSELF
`l3/22 (5th ed. 1996) (advising inventors to consider arguing that references teach away).
`2 Cf PEI‘!-ZR D. Roseiuaexo, PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS § l5.06[2] (2d ed. I995) (“Prior art
`the tenor of which would discourage doing what the claims do—i.e., reaching away from the
`claims. .
`.
`(emphasis added)).
`3 C}? Harris, supra note 1, at 98 (employing the expression “teach away arguments").
`4 See 35 use. § 282.
`5 E.g., Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 623, 630. I8 USPQ2d I657, I662 (Cl. Ct.
`I990) (“Plaintiff suggests that this is a .
`.
`. ‘teaching away‘ from the invention. .
`. .").
`
`867
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 10
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 10
`
`

`
`Lance Leonard Barry
`
`JPTOS
`
`Such an understanding will help us inter alia to recognize in-
`stances of teaching away and to distinguish them from three related
`notions. To emphasize the closeness of the notions to each other and
`to teaching away,‘ this article labels the notions with the homonymous
`expressions “teaching a wastefitl way,” “not teaching a way,” and
`“teaching another way.” Teaching a wasteful way refers to the fact
`that a modification or combination would have been expensive to make.
`Not teaching a way refers to the fact that a reference lacks a claimed
`feature. Teaching another way refers to the fact that a reference teaches
`a better, a preferred, or an alternative way to a claimed way of accom-
`plishing something.
`This article aims to increase understanding in three parts. Part I
`defines the concept of teaching away. Part II explains how references
`teach away. Part III distinguishes the notions of teaching a wastefiil
`way, not teaching a way, and teaching another way.
`
`I. DEFINING TEACHING Awav
`
`Section 103 of Title 35 of the United States Code denies a patent
`for inventions that are “obvious.”7 In Graham v. John Deere Co.“ the
`United States Supreme Court set forth a number of factual inquires for
`deciding the obviousness of inventions under § 103.9 Among these in~
`quires is determining “the scope and content of the prior art. .
`. .”'° In
`determining the scope and content of the prior art, references must be
`
`6 The closeness may be a reason for what one commentator termed the lack of “clearly artic-
`ulated specific standards useful for evaluating the validity and strength" of teaching away argu-
`ments in particular cases. Harris, supra note I, at 79-«SD.
`7 The full text of 35 U.S.C. § l03(a), with emphasis added, follows.
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section
`102 of this title, ifthc differences between the subject maner sought to be patented and the prior an are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the an to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be rtegatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`8 383 U.S_ l, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
`9 The Court expressed the inquiries as follows.
`Under § 103. the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and
`the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against
`this background. the obviousrtess or nonobviousnfis of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary con-
`siderations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.. might be utilized to give
`light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of
`obvitrusness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.
`Id. at l7—l8, 148 USPQ at 467.
`I0 Id. at 17, I48 USPQ at 467.
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 11
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1075, Page 11
`
`

`
`December i997
`
`‘
`
`Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching Away
`
`869
`
`i.e., “as a whole.”" The references must be
`read in their entirety,
`considered for all they disclose, disclosures that teach away from an
`invention as well as those that point toward it.”
`The United-States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed-
`eral Circuit) has stated that a reference will teach away from an inven-
`tion when “it suggests that the line of development flowing from the
`reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought
`by the applicant.7"3 Upon reading such a reference, explained the court,
`a person of ordinary skill in the art “would [have been] discouraged
`from following the path set out in the reference, or would [have been]
`led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.”” In
`short, teaching away is the “antithesis” of suggesting that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art proceed in the direction taken by an applicant.”
`Although the fact that a reference teaches away is “a significant
`factor to be considered in determining obviousnesS,”“ the Federal Cir-
`cuit has refused to adopt a per .99 rule that a reference that teaches away
`cannot serve to create a prima facie case of obviousness in all factual
`circumstances." This is because the degree of teaching away depends
`
`l USPQ2d 1593, I597 (Fed. Cir.
`l l Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d L561, 1568,
`i987); Akzo N.V. v. U.S. lnrn‘l Trade C0mm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1481,
`l USPQ2d l24l, 1246
`(Fed. Cir. 1986).
`1 USPQ2d at 1597; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &:
`12 Panduit Corp., 810 F.2d at I568,
`Refractories, lnc., 776 F.2d 281, 296, 227 USPQ 657, 666 (Fed. Cir. I985). See also Akzo N.\''.,
`808 F.2d at 1481,
`1 USPQ2d at 1246 (“consideration must be given where the references diverge
`and teach away from the claimed invention"); W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
`E540, I550, 220 USPQ‘ 303, 31! (Fed. Cir. I983) (district court erred in disregarding disclosures
`in the references that “diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand."}; American
`Standard v. Pfizer, 722 -F.Supp. 86, 1