Obviousness Presumed Within Range of Multiple Refernces

In Iron Grip Barbell Company, Inc., et al. v. USA Sports, Inc. (Fed. Cir. December 14, 2004), the obviousness of Iron Grip’s three-grip weight plate (above) did not arise from any combination of elements from the prior art.

Rather, the issue of the '015 patent’s obviousness arises because the prior art showed one, two and four elongated handles on weight plates. A single elongated handle on a weight plate was disclosed by the ’140 patent. Two elongated handles on a weight plate was disclosed by the ’502 patent. Four elongated handles on a weight plate was disclosed by U.S. Design Patent No. 406,183 (“the ’183 patent�).

However, the court also noted that simply because an invention falls within a range disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily make it per se obvious. Both the genus and species may be patentable.

Nonetheless, where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness. But the presumption will be rebutted if it can be shown: (1) That the prior art taught away from the claimed invention; or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.