top of page

In Re: Christopher John Rudy (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020)

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of Mr. Rudy's claims relating to a method of fishing which recites observing water clarity, measuring light transmittance and selecting a fishing hook based on a chart in the claims.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that "we apply our law and the relevant Supreme Court precedent, not the Office Guidance, when analyzing subject matter eligibility. To the extent the Office Guidance contradicts or does not fully accord with our caselaw, it is our caselaw, and the Supreme Court precedent it is based upon, that must control."

The Federal Circuit concluded that "although a portion of the Board’s analysis is framed as a recitation of the Office Guidance, in this particular case the Board’s reasoning and conclusion are nevertheless fully in accord with the relevant caselaw."

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page