Amended Complaint

Amended Complaint Analysis

Amended Complaint PDF

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

<h3>III. Court&#39;s Analysis</h3>
<h4>B. Obviousness Finding</h4>
<p>The court reviewed the prior art references to determine if the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The key teachings from the prior art are summarized below:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th><strong>Prior Art Reference</strong></th>
<th><strong>Taught Element</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr>
<td><em>Smith</em> (U.S. Pat. No. 5,123,456)</td>
<td>Discloses a widget with a flexible housing.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><em>Jones</em> Publication</td>
<td>Describes a method for manufacturing a similar widget using lightweight materials.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The court found that combining the teachings of <em>Smith</em> and <em>Jones</em> would have rendered the patent obvious.</p>


Post-reexam patent clash: Smart Vent targets rival's FEMA-compliant flood vents, alleging infringement of amended claims for an `automatic louver assembly`.

Prior Art Reference	Taught Element
Smith (U.S. Pat. No. 5,123,456)	Discloses a widget with a flexible housing.
Jones Publication	Describes a method for manufacturing a similar widget using lightweight materials.

1:10-cv-00168

Smart Vent Inc v. USA Floodair Vents Ltd

III. Court's Analysis

B. Obviousness Finding