Opinion ID: 207676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obvious to Try

Text: The record also shows that step (D) would have been obvious to try. The problem that the patent addresses is sending too few or too many e-mail messages to meet a fixed marketing quota. Krishnamurthy, Brady, and Lawlor collectively identified at most a few potential solutions for this problem at the time: (1) oversending, or e-mailing an excess of addresses to ensure the quota is met; (2) if some addresses failed or bounced back messages, re-sending to those same addresses in the hope that a second transmission somehow succeeds; and (3) identifying a new group of addresses and sending messages to them, which is step (D) in the '400 patent. Even without experimentation, simple logic suggests that sending messages to new addresses is more likely to produce successful deliveries than re-sending messages to addresses that have already failed. Perfect Web presented no evidence that the patented method offered any unexpected results or was not reasonably expected to succeed; indeed, the predictable and actual result of performing step (D) is that more e-mail messages reach more recipients. There was thus a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to suggest that the '400 patent's methods would have been obvious to try. Id. at 421. As the Supreme Court explained, if trying such a limited number of solutions leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Id. (emphasis added). Meanwhile, no evidence indicates that a person of ordinary skill would have needed to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices, or explore a new technology or general approach . . . where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it, which would counsel against an invention being obvious to try. Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (quoting In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). As noted, supra, the parties agreed that a person of ordinary skill possessed at least a high school diploma, one year of experience in the industry, and proficiency with computers and e-mail programs. Opinion at 6. Perfect Web argues that such a person was unsophisticated and had no knowledge of computer programming or system design. Perfect Web's Br. 57. However, Perfect Web does not explain how programming experience was necessary to appreciate the value of repeating known methods. Moreover, this position is merely attorney argument lacking evidentiary support. See Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that unsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence).