The Dolcera Blog

Mr. Mekete had filed the 5602905 patent in 1995 that allowed for a user to utilize commercial online services from a CPU, that had a modem and credit card reader coupled to the CPU, and where the CPU had a software installed to fulfil this transaction.

Later in August of 1998, Mr. Mekete filed for a reissue of his ‘905 patent since he believed he had severely limited his invention by not claiming the use of ‘online services perse’ from this CPU terminal.

Mr. Mekete’s patent is interesting since this ‘905 patent has 93 citations and hence is a seminal patent in that respect.
When Mr. Mekete filed for re-issuance of his patent, the BPAI rejected his assertion on grounds of obviousness. BPAI cited combination of 3 different references as a source to reject Mr. Meketes claim. Mr. Mekete appealed the BPAI decision with the CAFC that re-affirmed the BPAI decision.

Mr. Mekete’s arguments were that his invention was a commercial success since more than 50% of the internet kiosks were using the method he wished to Claim. However, the Board and the CAFC argued that when there is no-established co-relation between commercial success and the invention (in other words, the inventors commercialization efforts are not the reason for the success of the invention per-se) then the grounds to grant a patent based on utility is ‘weak’ - and also, that makes the BPAI argument to combine elements from ‘three’ different sources to reject the patent on ‘obviousness’ grounds as ’strong’.

- Lakshmikant

Tweet This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post 

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website