Competitiveness in Europe: Gap Widening According to World Economic Forum Study

Stephen Castle has the story at the New York Times in
Competitiveness Gap Widening in Europe, Study Finds.

Henry Ford, the Heydays of Capitalism and Who Stole the American Dream?

Make sure you read Henry Ford, When Capitalists Cared,
an article at the New York Times by Hedrick Smith,
author of the book "Who Stole the American Dream",
which goes on sale in a week, but can be preordered
(this is not an ad for the book and we get nothing for this link).

Yup, that is the solution.
The CAPITALISTS out there
have to go back to Henry Ford's principles.

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

College Football Predictions Week 2 FBS by the Yards Per Play System YPPSYS

College Football Predictions Week 2 FBS by the Yards Per Play System YPPSYS
(reposted from SportPundit)

Here are our college football FBS game predictions for Week 2 of the 2012 season using the YPPSYS yards per play system in which 1 rating point on our  2012 College Football Rankings FBS After Week 1 of Play = ca. 7 scoreboard points (just a rough estimate we use) and a home field advantage is worth 3 points. We estimate the score by using the sum of yards per play stats on both teams with a sum of about 21-22 for both offense and defense (both teams added together) as the average. This corresponds to a ca. average winning score of about 37-16, so that higher total ypp stat sums lead to higher score predictions and lower total ypp stat sums lead to lower score predictions. We then usually try to find scores that are typical in the suggested range.

The lines used this week are taken from the Rivals Yahoo Sports NCAAF Live Odds Pointspreads as of September 3, 2012 2:49 p,m. EDT. These are "moving lines" that can change at any time, but we do not adjust our predictions for that, but rather take the line as of a given date and time as given.

Caveat emptor (Buyer beware): We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport of college football. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind. No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We disclaim any and all liability for the consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis, links or reasoning - for which we make no warranty of accuracy. May the best team win.

The visiting team is listed first, then the home team
e.g. Team A (visitor) v. Team B (home): B is favored by X points

Thursday September 6, 2012

Pittsburgh v. Cincinnati: Bearcats favored by 4 points
Our call: Bearcats 34-21    Result: -

Friday September 7, 2012

Utah v. Utah State: Utes favored by 7 points
Our call: Utah 24-23    Result: -

Saturday September 8, 2012

Maryland v. Temple: Owls favored by 10.5 points
Our call: Temple 26-14   Result: -

North Carolina State v. Connecticut: Wolfpack favored by 6
Our call: UConn 23-17    Result: -

Miami (Florida) v. Kansas State: Wildcats favored by 7
Our call: Kansas State 33-30    Result: -

Penn State v. Virginia: Cavaliers favored by 10
Our call: Virginia 28-20   Result: -

Auburn v. Mississippi State: Bulldogs favored by 3
Our call: Auburn 28-27    Result: -

Tulane v. Tulsa: Golden Hurricane favored by 25
Our call: Tulsa 34-14      Result: -

UCF v. Ohio State: Buckeyes favored by 17.5
Our call: Buckeyes 34-17    Result: -

East Carolina v. South Carolina: Gamecocks favored by 22
Our call: South Carolina 42-21 (our ratings also give a spread of 22 points but the Gamecock offense was not up to par against Vanderbilt)    Result: -

Ball State v. Clemson: Tigers favored by 27
Our call: Clemson 38-21    Result: -

North Carolina v. Wake Forest: Tar Heels favored by 8
Our call: Tar Heels 28-13    Result: -

Iowa State v. Iowa: Hawkeyes favored by 3.5
Our call: Hawkeyes 23-17    Result: -

Indiana v. Massachusetts: Hoosiers favored by 13.5
Our call: Hoosiers 20-17    Result: -

Michigan State v. Central Michigan: Spartans favored by 23.5
Our call: Spartans 37-13    Result: -

Purdue v. Notre Dame: Fighting Irish favored by 14.5
Our call: Notre Dame 31-13    Result: -

USC v. Syracuse: Trojans favored by 27
Our call: Southern Cal 39-14    Result: -

Florida v. Texas A&M: Aggies favored by 1.5
Our call: Texas A&M 26-24    Result: -

Rice v. Kansas: Jayhawks favored by 9.5
Our call: Rice 35-31    Result: -

Air Force v. Michigan: Wolverines favored by 21
Our call: Michigan 45-28    Result: -

South Florida v. Nevada: Wolf Pack favored by 1
Our call: Nevada 23-21    Result: -

Western Kentucky v. Alabama: Crimson Tide favored by 40
Our call: Alabama 51-7    Result: -

Wisconsin v. Oregon State: Badgers favored by 7.5
Our call: Wisconsin 34-21    Result: -

Toledo v. Wyoming: Cowboys favored by 3
Our call: Wyoming 31-27    Result: -

Akron v. FIU: Golden Panthers favored by 23.5
Our call: FIU 30-23    Result: -

Fresno State v. Oregon: Ducks favored by 34
Our call: Oregon 44-28    Result: -

New Mexico State v. Ohio: Bobcats favored by 21
Our call: Ohio 38-21    Result: -

Louisiana-Lafayette v. Troy: Trojans favored by 3
Our call: Ragin' Cajuns 30-24    Result: -

Washington v. LSU: Tigers favored by 23.5
Our call: LSU 41-14    Result: -

Texas Tech v. Texas State: Red Raiders favored by 17
Our call: Texas Tech 24-23    Result: -

UTEP v. Mississippi: Rebels favored by 7.5
Our call: Ole Miss 31-23    Result: -

Memphis v. Arkansas State: Red Wolves favored by 22.5
Our call: Arkansas State 41-17    Result: -

Louisiana-Monroe v. Arkansas: Razorbacks favored by 30.5
Our call: Arkansas 40-17    Result: -

Idaho v. Bowling Green: Falcons favored by 16
Our call: Bowling Green 38-21    Result: -

Florida Atlantic v. Middle Tennessee: Blue Raiders favored by 8
Our call: Middle Tennessee 21-17    Result: -

Nebraska Cornhuskers v. UCLA: Huskers favored by 5
Our call: Huskers 47-20    Result: -

Kent State v. Kentucky: Wildcats favored by 7
Our call: Kentucky 30-21    Result: -

Army v.  San Diego State: Aztecs favored by 4
Our call: San Diego State 31-20    Result: -

Georgia v. Missouri: Bulldogs favored by 3
Our call: Missouri 31-30    Result: -

Louisiana Tech v.  Houston: Bulldogs favored by 4
Our call: Louisiana Tech 30-23    Result: -

Vanderbilt v. Northwestern: Commodores favored by 3
Our call: Vanderbilt 28-17    Result: -

New Mexico v. Texas: Longhorns favored by 37.5
Our call: Texas 44-21    Result: -

Duke v. Stanford: Cardinal favored by 14
Our call: Stanford 28-17    Result: -

Oklahoma State v. Arizona: Cowboys favored by 13
Our call: Oklahoma State 38-21    Result: -

Illinois v. Arizona State: Sun Devils favored by 1.5
Our call: Arizona State 24-20    Result: -

2012 College Football Rankings FBS After Week 1 of Play (reposted from SportPundit)

2012 College Football Rankings FBS After Week 1 of Play
(reposted from SportPundit)

These ratings and rankings after the first week of play are based on the primary measure of "net average yards per play advantage" (NAYPPA), which we were the first to implement. As a measuring stick, note that the best college teams of all time had a NAYPPA of not greater than 3.0 for an entire season. Schedules have become easier recently, e.g. through FCS scheduling, and Boise State had a 3.5 season NAYPPA two years ago but lost a game.

See Best Teams Ever: (top three as examples below)

• 3.0 NAYPPA - 6.6 yards per play on offense to 3.6 yards per play on defense = USC Trojans 2008 season

• 2.8 NAYPPA - 6.2 yards per play on offense to 3.4 yards per play on defense (stats) = Oklahoma Sooners 1974 season 

• 2.7 NAYPPA- 7.2 yards per play on offense to 4.5 yards per play on defense = Nebraska Cornhuskers 1995 season

An average FBS team gains ca. 5.4 yards per play on offense and allows ca. 5.4 yards per play on defense. The weaker an opponent the better the NAYPPA stat usually becomes, hence one has to adjust for schedule difficulty. We look at Sagarin at USA Today for schedule rankings, but in the early season have our own estimates. Later in the year, we may rely on Sagarin's computed data for that. Plus, we deduct a penalty for every loss, since "winning" is a factor.

This "After Week 1" Rating and Ranking, based almost entirely on games actually played this season in the first week, sets the foundation for the rest of the season. We don't really know yet where to rank the four new teams to FBS, especially since two of them played each other, so this is provisional.

The Huskers right now have the best stat "rating" with a dominant win over an excellent Southern Miss team, but there is a legitimate question down the road whether Nebraska will be able to sustain its position against more physical teams. Top running back Rex Burkhead was injured in the first game, so the physical side of the game is determinative. We saw Alabama beat Michigan physically on ESPN and it is hard to imagine them losing to anyone.

2012 Sport Pundit Rank	AFTER WEEK ONE TEAM FBS	NAYPPA net average yards per play advantage		yards per play offense		yards per play defense			Schedule difficulty thus far (these are estimates, x marks special adjustments)		W-L record 2012		YPPSYS Team Rating NAYPPA minus adjustments
1	Nebraska	4.1		8.0		3.9			40		1-0		3.3
2	Alabama	2.0		6.8		4.8			10		1-0		2.0
3	LSU	3.2		7.1		3.9			70		1-0		1.8
4	Oklahoma State	6.6		8.6		2.0			240		1-0		1.8
5	USC	3.7		7.4		3.7			100		1-0		1.7
6	Florida State	5.7		7.9		2.2			200		1-0		1.7
7	Michigan State	1.4		5.1		3.7			10		1-0		1.4
8	West Virginia	3.5		8.9		5.4			110		1-0		1.3
9	Oregon	-0.2		6.3		6.5			x		1-0		1.0
10	Notre Dame	2.7		6.4		3.7			90		1-0		0.9
11	Ohio State	2.1		6.3		4.2			80		1-0		0.5
12	Michigan	-2.0		4.8		6.8			x		0-1		0.4
13	Boise State	-1.4		3.7		5.1			x		0-1		0.4
14	Georgia	2.3		7.3		5.0			100		1-0		0.3
15	Oklahoma	1.7		5.8		4.1			70		1-0		0.3
16	Virginia Tech	0.4		4.5		4.1			x		1-0		0.3
17	Arkansas	4.2		8.2		4.0			200		1-0		0.2
18	South Carolina	-0.3		4.4		4.7			x		1-0		0.2
19	Tennessee	1.5		6.6		5.1			70		1-0		0.1
20	Florida	1.7		5.8		4.1			80		1-0		0.1
21	TCU	1.3		6.5		5.2			80		0-0		0.0
22	Missouri	4.0		7.3		3.3			200		1-0		0.0
23	Texas A&M	1.3		6.1		4.8			00		0-0		0.0
24	Baylor	3.6		9.1		5.5			x		1-0		0.0
25	BYU	1.8		5.5		3.7			90		1-0		0.0
26	North Carolina	4.7		7.1		2.4			230		1-0		-0.1
27	Texas	-0.1		5.8		5.9			x		1-0		-0.1
28	Wisconsin	-0.2		5.5		5.7			x		1-0		-0.2
29	Vanderbilt	0.3		4.7		4.4			20		0-1		-0.3
30	Southern Miss	-4.1		3.9		8.0			1		0-1		-0.4
31	Clemson	0.3		6.1		5.8			40		1-0		-0.5
32	Auburn	-0.3		5.8		6.1			30		0-1		-0.6
33	Iowa	-0.6		3.3		3.9			x		1-0		-0.6
34	Northern Illinois	0.6		3.9		3.3			x		0-1		-0.6
35	Georgia Tech	-0.4.		4.1		4.5			x		0-1		-0.6
36	Cincinnati	0.7		5.6		4.9			73		0-0		-0.6
37	Miami (Florida)	1.1		6.4		5.3			90		1-0		-0.7
38	Ohio	0.7		5.7		5.0			70		1-0		-0.7
39	South Florida	3.4		5.8		2.4			210		1-0		-0.8
40	Kansas State	1.9		7.3		5.4			140		1-0		-0.9
41	Mississippi State	1.5		6.0		4.5			120		1-0		-0.9
42	Arizona State	3.9		7.8		3.9			150		1-0		-0.9
43	Utah	3.1		5.4		2.3			200		1-0		-0.9
44	Stanford	-0.4		4.2		4.6			x		1-0		-1.0
45	Iowa State	0.6		4.9		4.3			80		1-0		-1.0
46	UCLA	4.8		9.4		4.6			x		1-0		-1.0
47	Arizona	3.3		7.1		3.8			x		1-0		-1.0
48	Texas Tech	3.7		5.4		1.7			240		1-0		-1.1
49	Illinois	0.1		4.0		3.9			x		1-0		-1.1
50	Nevada	-0.3		5.1		5.4			40		1-0		-1.1
51	Arkansas State	0.2		6.5		6.3			x		0-1		-1.2
52	California	0.3		5.4		5.1			x		0-1		-1.2
53	Louisville	1.2		6.5		5.3			120		1-0		-1.2
54	Utah State	2.8		7.4		3.6			200		1-0		-1.2
55	Fresno State	3.5		7.9		4.4			x		1-0		-1.2
56	Virginia	2.4		6.4		4.2			180		1-0		-1.2
57	UCF	1.9		5.9		4.0			160		1-0		-1.3
58	Purdue	2.7		6.3		3.6			200		1-0		-1.3
59	Mississippi	2.0		7.2		5.2			170		1-0		-1.4
60	San Jose State	0.4		4.6		4.2			x		0-1		-1.4
61	Louisiana Tech	0.3		5.2		4.9			80		0-0		-1.5
62	Tulsa	-0.6		4.3		4.9			40		0-1		-1.6
63	Texas State	0.9		5.8		4.9			x		1-0		-1.6
64	Temple	0.8		6.2		5.4			120		1-0		-1.6
65	Air Force	3.8		9.1		5.3			x		1-0		-1.6
66	Washington	-0.5		5.0		5.7			x		1-0		-1.6
67	San Diego State	0.5		5.5		5.0			x		0-1		-1.7
68	SMU	-3.6		5.5		9.1			x		0-1		-1.7
69	Rutgers	1.5		5.6		4.1			160		1-0		-1.7
70	Louis.-Lafayette	2.8		5.7		2.9			220		1-0		-1.7
71	Connecticut	4.0		5.3		1.3			x		1-0		-1.8
72	Penn State	-0.7		5.0		5.7			50		0-1		-1.9
73	West. Michigan	-0.1		3.9		4.0			x		0-1		-2.0
74	Pittsburgh	1.0		6.4		5.4			140		0-1		-2.0
75	Toledo	-3.3		3.8		7.1			70		0-1		-2.1
76	Houston	-0.9		4.9		5.8			x		0-1		-2.1
77	UTEP	-1.7		4.1		5.8			10		0-1		-2.1
78	N.C. State	-1.5		5.1		6.6			30		0-1		-2.2
79	Duke	1.0		6.6		5.6			x		1-0		-2.2
80	Northwestern	-1.6		4.7		6.3			x		1-0		-2.3
81	Syracuse	1.6		6.3		4.7			x		0-1		-2.3
82	Boston College	-1.1		5.3		6.4			50		0-1		-2.3
83	Colorado State	1.1		4.6		3.5			x		1-0		-2.3
84	Rice	-4.8		4.6		9.4			x		0-1		-2.4
85	Hawaii	-3.7		3.7		7.4			x		0-1		-2.4
86	Navy	-2.7		3.7		6.4			x		0-1		-2.4
87	Oregon State	-0.4		5.5		5.9			19		0-0		-2.4
88	Marshall	-3.5		8.9		5.4			x		0-1		-2.4
89	Bowling Green	-1.7		4.1		5.8			30		0-1		-2.4
90	Miami (Ohio)	-2.1		4.2		6.3			10		0-1		-2.4
91	Ball State	0.7		6.2		5.5			160		1-0		-2.4
92	Cent. Michigan	2.2		7.3		5.1			230		1-0		-2.4
93	Wyoming	0.1		5.9		5.8			x		0-1		-2.5
94	Buffalo	-2.3		5.0		7.3			10		0-1		-2.5
95	East Carolina	-0.8		5.0		5.8			x		1-0		-2.5
96	West. Kentucky	5.8		9.0		3.2			x		1-0		-2.5
97	New Mexico St.	1.5		7.5		6.0			200		1-0		-2.5
98	Kentucky	-1.2		5.3		6.5			60		0-1		-2.6
99	East. Michigan	-0.7		5.5		6.2			90		0-1		-2.6
100	Washington St.	-1.8		3.7		5.5			30		0-1		-2.6
101	Louis.-Monroe	0.1		5.0		4.9			113		0-0		-2.6
102	Wake Forest	-0.6		4.4		5.0			100		1-0		-2.6
103	Florida Int'l FIU	-1.0		5.6		6.6			80		0-1		-2.7
104	Army	-0.2		5.7		5.9			79		0-0		-2.8
105	Maryland	0.5		4.1		3.6			x		1-0		-2.9
106	Minnesota	2.5		6.3		3.8			x		1-0		-3.0
107	New Mexico	1.8		6.8		5.0			240		1-0		-3.0
108	Akron	-1.9		4.0		5.9			50		0-1		-3.1
109	Kent State	-0.3		4.5		4.8			140		0-1		-3.3
110	Colorado	-1.1		3.5		4.6			100		0-1		-3.3
111	North Texas	-3.2		3.9		7.1			1		0-1		-3.4
112	Troy	0.9		6.8		5.9			x		1-0		-3.4
113	Kansas	-0.5		5.1		5.6			150		1-0		-3.5
114	Mid. Tennessee	-1.4		5.0		6.4			120		0-1		-3.8
115	Florida Atlantic	1.2		5.1		3.9			250		1-0		-3.8
116	UAB	-0.9		5.9		6.8			x		0-1		-4.1
117	Tulane	-1.5		4.1		5.6			120		0-1		-4.1
118	Indiana	-0.6		5.4		6.0			180		1-0		-4.2
119	Idaho	-1.6		4.0		5.6			120		0-1		-4.2
120	UNLV	-2.5		3.8		6.3			80		0-1		-4.3
121	Memphis	-0.1		5.0		5.1			200		0-1		-4.3
122	UTSA	1.6		6.5		4.9			x		1-0		-4.3
123	Massachusetts	-4.0		1.3		5.3			x		0-1		-4.3
124	South Alabama	-1.6		4.9		6.5			x		0-1		-4.3

Why is the Einstein Quote in the Previous Posting Relevant to Patents? Because Einstein Was a Swiss Patent Clerk Prior to Making His Mark in Physics

Why is the Einstein quote in the previous posting at LawPundit relevant to the modern discussion about prior art and obviousness in patents?

Because Einstein worked at the Swiss Patent Office as a patent clerk before making his mark on the world in physics.

The quote we feature in that previous posting tells us a lot about how Einstein viewed inventors, patent applications and prior art.

See:

The Albert Einstein Archives
PBS NOVA - Einstein the Nobody

Patents Prior Art Obviousness: KSR : USPTO : Utility and Design : Form and Function : Look and Feel and What the Invention Does : The Ordinary Course Without Real Innovation is Not Patentable

Only an inventor knows how to borrow, and every man is or should be an inventor. — Ralph Waldo Emerson


Albert Einstein on Creativity linked from Brandautopsy.com "Borrowing Brilliance"

 Jenson: Albert Einstein Quotes - The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. 

Utility Patents and Design Patents 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, pursuant to U.S. federal laws and decisions of the courts, grants utility and design patents, defined by the USPTO at its website as follows:

"A utility patent may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof. A design patent may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."

Essentially, an invention viz. discovery can thus be patented for its FORM (design, the way it looks and feels) and/or FUNCTION (what it does), given the legal limitations on "prior art" and "obviousness" found further below.

Pro-patent forces argue that "anything under the Sun that is made by man" can be patented, but that rose-colored rainbow standard meets inter alia the Biblically recorded reality barrier that "there is nothing new under the Sun":

"What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
      there is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV Bible

Patent terminology: Utility and Design, Function and Form

Place of Application		Patent Parameter	Patent Parameter
At the USPTO		Utility	Design
		Normal Terminology	Normal Terminology
In Arts & Architecture		Function	Form
Laymen's Language		What it Does	How it Looks and Feels

What are the two basic requirements for patentability?

• Nondisclosure in Prior Art
• Not Obvious to a Phosita (a person of ordinary skill in the art)

Place of Application	Commentary	Patent Rule	Patent Rule
At the USPTO	The "business" of the USPTO is "patents" and who is going to sabotage their own business?	The claimed invention can not be disclosed in prior art	The invention can not be obvious to "a person having ordinary skill in the art", a so-called "phosita"
		Normal Terminology	Normal Terminology
In the Arts & Architecture	No comparable patents exist in art or in architecture and thus these disciplines are more creative	Original	Avant-garde

The blog The Prior Art referred a couple of years back to a wry comment made in oral arguments by United States Supreme Chief Justice Roberts about the U.S. Circuit Courts (including the Federal Circuit) being obligated to follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions:

"Chief Justice Roberts: Well, they don't have a choice, right? They can't say, I don't like the Supreme Court rule so I'm not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.

(Laughter in the court.)
 

This rebuke seems to indicate that as Roberts sees it, the Federal Circuit has a habit of blowing off Supreme Court precedent."

The Stanford Technology Law Review has a note on
New Insights on the "Death” of Obviousness:
An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions"
by Sean M. McEldowney which concludes:
"On the surface, these results seem to support the notion that the Federal Circuit has effectively gutted the standard of obviousness."
[McEldowney then goes on to suggest it may not be so simple.... (but we suspect it IS that simple).] 2006 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 4 http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_4

The Federal Circuit in the USA is made up primarily of persons with technical degrees. This is a regrettable error in the make-up of this court, because their technology interests make them biased in favor of patents. The Federal Circuit has in fact been all but ignoring recent U.S. Supreme Court dictates, and have been getting reversed regulary for so ignoring them.

Those dictates are, here via the Wikipedia article on KSR v. Teleflex:

"Main article: KSR v. Teleflex

The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on how the lower court defined the capabilities of a PHOSITA. KSR v. Teleflex was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on April 30, 2007.

Importantly, Justice Kennedy's opinion stated, "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Although the Court's opinion acknowledged other Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as having "common sense" and who could find motivation "implicitly in the prior art," Kennedy emphasized that his opinion was directed at correcting the "errors of law made by the Court of Appeals in this case" and does not necessarily overturn all other Federal Circuit precedent.

Once the PHOSITA is properly defined, KSR v. Teleflex described how obviousness should be determined:

In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.

which was applied to the facts before the Court with the following:

The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor."

What are the consequences of KSR?

At LawPundit we previously quoted the unanimous decision in KSR in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy:

"Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.... As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."

Kennedy hammers the new standard home with a clear rejection of the formalistic conceptions attaching to the previous "helpful insights" of the TSM test:

"Helpful insights ... need not become rigid and mandatory formulas; and when it is so applied, the TSM test is incompatible with our precedents. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility." [emphasis added by LawPundit]

What are the consequences of KSR when properly applied in cases like Apple v. Samsung and to Apple's claims to exclusive proprietary patent rights in "bounce-back" software code applications or to various obvious "man-machine interactions" such as human touch controls of digital displays?

It is quite clear that the Supreme Court would throw those Apple patents out without blinking an eye as being no different in principle as a pedal designer of ordinary skill adding a sensor, i.e. a combination of previously known elements.

There is no inventive step in such compositions and no invention worthy of patent protection. The law can not permit a situation in which obvious developments in normal course of the state of the art become proprietary exclusive rights of greedy monopolistic companies who are just combining various features of prior art. However, that is a wisdom that the judges on the present Federal Circuit -- uniquely RESPONSIBLE for patent appeals -- are having difficulty understanding.

Place of Application		KSR Standard	KSR Standard
United States Supreme Court		Advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation are obvious	A phosita of ordinary skill has common sense, ordinary creativity and is not an automoton

Conclusion, Quo Vadis?


Maybe legislators in reforming patent law and judges in handling patent cases should heed the words of Henry Ford :

"I invented nothing new. I simply combined the inventions of others into a car. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed."

— Henry Ford

Modern smartphones or PC tablets or similar electronic gadgets are no different, being combinations of thousands of inventions and ideas of others to which no one should be able to claim any kind of proprietary exclusivity.

In fact, modern electronic devices trace their origins back to ancient writing shapes and surfaces as well as to the carving, wedging or stamping of iconic symbols into wood, stone, clay, or other earths or materials.

Today these data surfaces are called electronic displays and icons, but in fact, as far as invention is concerned, they are the same.

Transistors and microprocessors have enabled the micromanufacture of solid state elements that manifest more modern display possibilities in obvious utility and obvious design, all anticipated by prior art, long, long ago.

See also:

The Pinch Gesture as an Ancient Non-Patentable Natural Physical Historical and Technological Hand Mechanism With Prior Pinch Pot Art Galore as Obvious as the Hand in Front of Your Face : Our Modern Patent Systems are Operating in a Fantasy World

Samsung Digital Picture Frame 2006 is Clear Designer Prior Art to the Later "Design" of the iPhone and iPad

The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years

Ancient Rectangular Mirrors With Rounded Corners as Image Inventions Precede the iPad by Thousands of Years: Apple Did Not Invent These Basic Designs

Old California Speed Limit Sign is Virtually Identical in Design to Apple iPad

Massachusetts First Standardized License Plate 1957 as Nearly Identical Prior Art for the Apple Phone

Motor Vehicle Registration Plates - License Plates - As Your Most Obvious Prior Art for Text and Graphic Information Displays on Rectangular Surfaces with Rounded Edges Enclosed in Bezels

In the Year 2525 ... You Won't Be Able to Move a Finger Without Paying Apple LOL

U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Blocked by Preliminary Injunction Because of Patent Suit : Infringement Actions As THE Legal Weapon of Choice to Block Potential Competition

Minimalist Rounded Corner Design is Ubiquitous, So Why Should One Company be able to get ANY Rights to That Design