: Client received an “invitation to license” a patent to a very simple article of manufacture (dispensing container). The article as claimed has three main structural elements, each of which is subject to one or more further structural (e.g. having rib here, boss there…) or functional (e.g. for receiving, contacting …) limitations. A qualitative limitation to the material of construction of one structural element (e.g. “stiff”) notwithstanding, IMO the claims pass 112, are anyway presumptively valid, and dead-on read on client’s article. Question
: It is my understanding that combining elements, i.e. making integral/unitary that which the PA teaches as separate, is pf
obvious (and wouldn’t per jure
avoid DoE either). So, with problem on my mind, I went to brush my teeth, picked-up and opened the long-since-known “stand-on-head” tube, and bingo! there I find (possibly) all the recited elements and further structural limitations save one (for purpose of hypo, call it a “sealing gasket”). I need to get a life, I know. But by integrating two elements, making “one piece”, one simply avoids the need for the “gasket” altogether, which gasket performs its usual and customary (sealing) function in the patented article. So finally, any argument/authority for the reverse argument, making separate
that which art teaches as unitary
obvious? It seems to me that making separate is, on one hand, counterintuitive, but in this case required only by the “stiff” limitation that, in turn, is arguably dictated by the particular intended function (end use). Thoughts?