Law of Patents

Chapter 5. Non-Obviousness

Introduction
  1. The Historical Foundation of § 103 and the Nonobviousness Requirement
    Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
    view pdfHotchkiss Patent No. 2,197
    Comments
  2. The Graham Test
  3. Application of the Graham Test
    1. Determining Obviousness (or Not)
      KSR International v. Teleflex, Inc.
      view pdfTeleflex Patent No. 6,237,565
      Comments
      view pdfPost-KSR Examination Guidelines Update, Sept. 1, 2010
      Comparative Perspective: Section 103’s European Counterpart — “Inventive Step”
      Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc.
      view pdfPerfect Web patent No. 6,631,400
      Comments
      Proctor & Gamble Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
      view pdfProctor & Gamble patent No. 5,583,122
      Comments
    2. Constructing the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
      Daiichi Sankyo Co,, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.
      view pdfDaiichi Patent No. 401,741
      Comments
    3. Available Prior Art and the Analogous Art Doctrine
      In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
      view pdfIcon Health Patent No. 5,676,624
      Comments
    4. Policy Perspective: Using § 103 as a Policy Tool
  4. Secondary Considerations
    Iron Grip Barbell Company, Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.
    view pdfIron Grip Patent No. 6,436,015
    Comments
Get the latest news from CWRU Law directly to your inbox