Skip to content
  • Patent Blog
  • Jobs

  • logo

  • Ethics
  • Journal

America's leading patent law source

Eligibility: Novelty and Nonobviousness Evidence is Irrelevant to the Inventive Concept Question

November 2, 2017Patentobviousness, paidDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Login

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. View all posts by Dennis Crouch →

Post navigation

← British Invasion in DC Role of the Specification and Prosecution History in Patent Eligibility Analysis →

Patently-O Authors

Dennis Crouch
Professor, University of Missouri School of Law
SSRN Articles
Follow Dennis on LinkedIn
Jason Rantanen
Professor, University of Iowa College of Law
SSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics

Patently-O Tools

NEW: Patently-O Paid Membership
Join thousands of patent law professionals

Manage your Account
Reset your password, Manage Subscriptions, Force logout.

Free Daily E-Mail
About 25,000 individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.

Find a patent job
We regularly post top patent jobs from leading firms, corporations, and government and educational institutions.

Submit a patent job
Find a patent professional among the 15,000+ monthly visitors of the job board, many of whom are patent professionals at large firms and corporations.

Request a Free Membership
Students, professors, judges and their clerks, and folks making <$75k annual income all qualify.

Categories

Recent Patent Posts

  • Supreme Court Asked to Address Constitutionality of Judge Newman Removal
  • IP & Ski 2025: The Ultimate Intellectual Property Conference Returns to Vail
  • AI’s Role in U.S. Elections: Republican vs. Democratic Views
  • Federal Circuit Issues Twin Decisions in Cellspin Cases: Procedure and Timing Matter
  • Federal Circuit’s “Red Flags” Fee Analysis Under Fire: DISH Seeks En Banc Review
  • Federal Circuit Vacates Denial of Anti-Suit Injunction in FRAND Dispute, Clarifying “Dispositive” Analysis
  • The Enduring Patent Owner/Licensee Standing Distinction
  • Text vs Precedent: Celanese and the Secret Process On-Sale Bar
  • Trade Secrets vs. Patents: Pioneer’s Plant Patent Strategy Raises Thorny Issues (Corny Issues?)
  • Doctrine of Equivalents: Expert Testimony Must Include Particularized Links

Popular Tags

Abstract Idea Affirmed Without Opinion ai AIA Trials anticipation Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Claim Construction Copyright Damages design patent double patenting DTSA Enablement en banc Federal Circuit Federal Circuit En Banc First to Invent Historical Cases Inequitable Conduct inventorship IPR Licenses Marking motivation to combine obviousness Oil States paid patent eligibility patent infringement patent law patent litigation patent prosecution Personal Jurisdiction PGR Printed Publication reasonable expectation of success Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Supreme Court Trademark Trade Secrets USPTO USPTO Director Venue Written Description

Archives

Contact Us

  • E-mail Dennis Crouch
  • E-mail Patently-O Jobs
  • Submit a Job Listing