XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[napkinbie]

It was a 2-1 decision and Chen is the dissenting judge.

In Chen's dissenting opinion, he implied the Court applied common sense in their "obviousness " conclusion. IMO, obviousness issues in patent disputes are often complex and cannot simply be resolved through common sense alone. In this instance of Vringo's patent, which involves query, rank, and categorize the search results via complex algorithm; the issue of obviousness should be best decided by the USPTO personnel, but not by the Court. But unfortunately for Vringo, the CAFC has the final authority.

If the Court indeed relied on common sense in its obviousness determination, Vringo should attack at the Court's common sense logic, and only that can bring some hope for the Court to grant Vringo the en banc review.