<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in TPW 6: Patent reform, FreeConference v. AT&amp;amp;T, and a paper trail for e-voting</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:38:47 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: TPW 6: Patent reform, FreeConference v. AT&amp;amp;T, and a paper trail for e-voting</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/tpw-6-patent-reform-freeconference-v-att-and-a-paper-trail-for-e-voting/#comment-1450403</link><description>Guys -- &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Great discussion on patent reform, particularly the court-based reforms that are already underway.  If the last session of Congress showed us anything on this issue, it has to be that a comprehensive reform package is too divisive.  Hopefully, new leadership chooses to tackle the issue by focusing on some of the issues that enjoy relatively broad support (there actually are a few). &lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We'll soon know if the Supreme Court leaves a new mark on the obviousness issue.  You've done a nice job of summarizing the issue, but I'd caution against any approach that confuses simplicity (you say 'trivial') with obviousness.  The law has always struggled with the issue of obviousness -- particularly with simple inventions.  Some extremely simple inventions - and indeed innovations - might not have been brought forward absent patent protection.  &lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In an interesting twist, the Federal Circuit has been highlighting the flexibility of its teaching-suggestion-motivation test while the world awaits the Supreme Court's decision in the KSR case, finding motivation to combine references (and therefore render a claimed invention obvious) in the "prior art as a whole" or "the nature of the problem to be solved" in at least three cases over the last few months.  See our reviews of &lt;i&gt;Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;a href="http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/dystar-textilfarben-v.-c.h.-patrick.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/dystar-texti...&lt;/a&gt;), &lt;i&gt;Pfizer v. Apotex&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;a href="http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/pfizer-inc.-v.-apotex-inc.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/pfizer-inc.-...&lt;/a&gt;), and &lt;i&gt;Dippin' Dots v. Mosey&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;a href="http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/dippin-dots-inc.-v.-mosey-et-al.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.fedcirc.us/case-reviews/dippin-dots-...&lt;/a&gt;) on FedCirc.us for examples. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">J. Matthew Buchanan</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:38:47 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>