In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court, through Justice Kennedy’s unanimous opinion, directed the Federal Circuit to revert to the broader framework for evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as originally outlined in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851). Prior to this decision, the Federal Circuit had narrowed the obviousness analysis by introducing the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test to bring greater uniformity.
The TSM Test and the Supreme Court’s Rejection of Rigidity
The Federal Circuit’s TSM test required a specific motivation or suggestion to combine prior art for a claim to be deemed obvious: “a patent claim is only proved obvious if ‘some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings’ can be found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.” While the Supreme Court did not reject the TSM test entirely, it ruled that a rigid application was inappropriate. The TSM test remains valid when applied flexibly, consistent with the broader, functional approach reaffirmed in Graham and Hotchkiss.
Key Errors Identified by the Supreme Court
- Motivation Not Limited to Solving the Specific Problem:
The Federal Circuit erred by restricting motivation or suggestion for combining elements to solving the patentee’s specific problem. The Supreme Court stated that any problem or need known in the field at the time of invention could justify combining elements in the claimed manner, allowing for a broader consideration of motivations beyond the problem directly addressed by the patent. - Scope of Prior Art Too Narrow:
The Supreme Court criticized the Federal Circuit for viewing the prior art too narrowly by excluding references to similar items that addressed different problems. The Court explained that “common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes,” and that a skilled individual may combine teachings from multiple patents “like pieces of a puzzle” when the art suggests such a combination. - “Obvious to Try” Combinations:
The Federal Circuit mistakenly ruled that showing a combination was “obvious to try” was insufficient to prove obviousness. However, the Supreme Court held that if there is a design need or market pressure, and a finite set of predictable solutions exists, a skilled person would likely pursue these known options. Success in this pursuit indicates that the product may be a result of ordinary skill and common sense, rather than genuine innovation. - Concerns Over Hindsight Bias:
The Federal Circuit aimed to prevent hindsight bias by imposing strict standards. However, the Supreme Court found that rigid rules preventing recourse to common sense are unnecessary and inconsistent with existing case law. Instead, courts and patent examiners should freely use common sense while analyzing obviousness.
Reaffirming the Graham Framework
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reinstated the evaluation of obviousness to the original analysis in Graham, which includes:
- Determining the scope and content of the prior art
- Assessing differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
- Establishing the level of ordinary skill in the relevant field
- Determining obviousness or non-obviousness based on this background
Additionally, secondary considerations (such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and the failure of others) may provide insight into the circumstances surrounding the origin of the invention.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR v. Teleflex broadens the test for obviousness, allowing courts and the USPTO greater flexibility to consider a wide range of motivations and prior art. This decision reinforces the need for a functional, common-sense approach to obviousness in patent law.
If you need help with patenting your invention, please schedule your consultation by calling me at (949) 433-0900. As an experienced patent attorney in Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding areas, I’m here to assist.