Point of Novelty Can Reside in a Combination of Known Features that are a Non-Trivial Advance

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Adi Torkiya, [2006-1562](August 29, 2007)[MOORE, Dyk, Archer] The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 467,389 on an ornamental nail buffer.
SIGINFICANCE:
BRIEF: The district court granted summary judgment that the accused design did not appropriate the point of novelty. The Federal Circuit reiterated that there are two tests for design patent infringement, the ordinary observer test, and the point of novelty test. The Point of novelty test requires that no matter how similar two items look, the accused device must appropriate the novelty in the patented deice which distinguishes it from the prior art. LOF: Both the ordinary observer test and the point of novelty test are factual inquiries. The point of novelty can be either a single novel design element or a combination of elements that are individually know in the prior art. For a combination of individually know elements to be the point of novelty, the combination must be a non-trivial advance over the prior art. The Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could conclude that the point of novelty proffered by EGI is a non-trivial advance over the prior art. The Federal Circuit said that in light of the prior art, no reasonable juror could conclude that EGI's asserted point of novelty constituted a non-trivial advance over the prior art.