If you want a prime example of obviousness silliness by the Federal Circuit (The US court that handles all patent appeals), let’s take a non-precedential opinion issued yesterday, In Re Michael C. Scroggie (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2006).
Mr. Scroggie appealed the Board’s decision affirming a final rejection of his patent application having claims directed to a method for generating a web page (including the limitations “generating page data” and “personalized web page”). The Federal Circuit reversed.
Both the Board and the Director apply an unreasonable construction to the term “generating page data” such that Angles, which teaches “selecting” advertisements which contain hyper-links can somehow teach or suggest “generating.” Generating does not imply a mere selection of pre-existing page data, but rather the creation or origination of such data. Therefore, the Board’s construction of “generating page data” was unreasonable and its conclusion that Angles teaches that limitation is thus unsupported by substantial evidence.
Yes. It’s completely non-obvious that given the idea of selecting pre-existing data to put into a page, one could simply generate some of it on the fly instead. Furthermore, it’s not even reasonable! Good thing you also aren’t allowed to rely on the common level of skill in the art, and common sense, when determining obviousness (cute judicially added restrictions that you will find nowhere in the various patent law statutes). Wouldn’t want to stop the innovation train.
After all, i’m sure you are all familiar with the name Scroggie! He’s the one who invented generating page data based on personalized information, back in 1998.
Sigh.