• KSR “did not remove the need to anchor the analysis in explanation of how a person of ordinary skill would select and apply teachings of the references.”
• KSR did not “free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning.”
• Examiner “should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature would have been obvious or well known.”
• “Examiner should at east explain the logic or common sense that leads the examiner to believe the
claim would have been obvious.”
- “Anything less than this results in a record that is insulated from meaningful appellate review.”
No comments:
Post a Comment