What is Obvious?

KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___(case 04-1350) (2007).

Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Id. at 17–18.

Id. at 18.

Id..

This is currently codified in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure at MPEP § 2144.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (or CAFC) is the court designated to hear all appeals in patent cases in the US.

See, for example, Medichem S.A. v Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Tec Air, Inc. v Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

See, for example, Merck & Co., Inc. v Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 806 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, also, Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165.

This is not to impugn the impartiality of the judge or jury. Judges and juries are members of society, and have to be members of society in order to perform their roles. Naturally, this means that to a greater or lesser extent, judges and juries are aware of current events, and can be expected to place a litigation into that context.

In addition to KSR, the Supreme Court decided eBay, Inc. v Mercexchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S (2006) (holding that an injunction is not an automatic right when a patent owner wins an infringement case); and Medimmune, Inc. v Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. (2007) (holding that a patent licensee paying royalties has the right to sue for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-1350.pdf.

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F. 3d 1356, 1367 (2006).

Alza Corp. v Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1291 (2006).

KSR, slip op. at 14–15.

KSR, slip op. at 15.

KSR, slip op. at 16–17.

KSR, slip op. at 17 (internal citation omitted).

Pfizer, Inc. v Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007), pet. for reh'g en banc denied (2007).

Pfizer, 480 F.3d at 1365–67.

KSR, slip op. at 23–24.

KSR, slip op. at 14–15.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v Fisher-Price, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 06–1402, slip op. at 7 (9th May, 2007).

Pfizer v Apotex, Fed. Cir. No. 06–1261 (21st May, 2007).

However, subsequent to the latest three Board of Appeals decisions (see footnote 28) the PTO will be issuing new guidelines to Examiners and will be conducting dedicated tutorials to all Examiners on how KSR is to be applied.

McNeil-PPC Inc. v Perrigo Co., S.D.N.Y., No. 05 Civ. 01321 (5th June, 2007).

Sanofi-Synthelabo v Apotex, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 02 Civ. 2255 (19th June, 2007).

Two other decisions issued at the same time in the mechanical and electrical technologies separately applied KSR in those technological areas as well, but are not discussed here.