The oral argument of the day is from In re Stepan. The appeal in this case dealt with whether one could assert that it is merely routine optimization to modify a single reference in a §103 rejection in the unpredictable arts. There was a split decision with Judges Moore and O’Malley in the majority and Judge Lourie in the dissent.
One interesting quote from the majority decision was:
Because the Board failed to adequately articulate its reasoning, erroneously rejected relevant evidence of nonobviousness, and improperly shifted to Stepan the burden of proving patentability, we vacate the Board’s decision that claims 1-31 of the ‘567 application would have been obvious.
The Board failed to explain why it would have been “routine optimization” to select and adjust the claimed surfactants and achieve a cloud point above at least 70°C. See J.A. 8-9. “The agency tribunal must make findings of relevant facts, and present its reasoning in sufficient detail that the court may conduct meaningful review of the agency action.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention through routine optimization falls short of this standard. Missing from the Board’s analysis is an explanation as to why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention. Similar to cases in which the Board found claimed inventions would have been “intuitive” or “common sense,” the Board must provide some rational underpinning explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention through routine optimization. See, e.g., Van Os, 844 F.3d at 1361 (“Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been `common sense’ or `intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination `would have been obvious.'”); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[R]eferences to `common sense’ … cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support….”). Absent some additional reasoning, the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed invention through routine optimization is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness.
In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
You can listen to the oral argument here:
I had to chuckle that after the appeal was returned to the Board and remanded to the Examiner, the Examiner relied upon a new single reference and made this statement:
The Applicant eventually had to file a second appeal to the Board before modified claims were allowed.
You can review the subsequent file history here: Link.
In the second appeal decision, the Board wrote: