Law of Patents

Chapter 5. Non-Obviousness

  1. The Historical Foundation of § 103 and the Nonobviousness Requirement
    Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
    view pdfHotchkiss Patent No. 2,197
  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
      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
      Proctor & Gamble Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
      view pdfProctor & Gamble patent No. 5,583,122
    2. Constructing the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
      Daiichi Sankyo Co,, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.
      view pdfDaiichi Patent No. 401,741
    3. Available Prior Art and the Analogous Art Doctrine
      In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
      view pdfIcon Health Patent No. 5,676,624
    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
Get the latest news from CWRU Law directly to your inbox