Chapter five covers the requirement of nonobviousness, which originates from § 103. The nonobviousness analysis was developed into a four factor test in Graham v. John Deere. As mentioned in chapter four, that test is built on the prior art identified by § 102. The introductory article by Judge Rich gives some important background on the motivation behind introducing a statutory requirement of nonobviousness and how that requirement differs from the common law concept of invention originating from Hotchkiss v. Greenwood in 1850.
The precise nature of the Graham test has changed recently with the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. That case involves several pieces of prior art, and it may be helpful to read through the patents before reading the case. The patents in the case are primarily mechanical and should be easily understandable, especially by those who have driven a car with adjustable pedals.
For an example of a European patent application, see the materials for Ex Parte Deuel. Note that the claims themselves are presented in English, German, and French, which are the three working languages of the European Patent Office.
Judge Giles S. Rich, The Vague Concept of “Invention” As Replaced by § 103 of the 1952 Patent Act, 46 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 855 (1964) (Read before Graham v. John Deere)
- See 35 USC 103 and MPEP §§ 2141–2146
- Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
- Calmar v. Cook Chemical, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
- United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)
- In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir.1992).
- In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir.1994)
- Hazeltine Research v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252 (1965)
- In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276 (CCPA 1973)
- OddzOn Products v. Just Toys ,122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir.1997)
- McGinley v. Franklin Sports, 262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
- KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ___ (2007)
- Pentec v. Graphic Controls, 776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir.1985)
- In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir.1988)
- In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir.1990) (en banc)
- In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir.1995)
- Amgen v. Chugai Pharmeceutical, 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir.1991)
- In re Bell, 991 991 F.2d 781 (Fed. Cir.1993)
- Ex Parte Deuel, et. al. 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1445 (Bd. Pat. App & Int’f 1993)
- In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
- See materials for Ex Parte Deuel
- In re Durden, 763 F.2d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
- In re Pleuddemann, 910 F.2d 823 (Fed. Cir.1990)
- In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir.1995)