Remixing Obviousness

25 Pages Posted: 23 Jul 2007 Last revised: 3 Oct 2015

Date Written: July 23, 2007

Abstract

In April 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time in 41 years, decided a case about the basic contours of patent law's nonobviousness standard. The case, KSR, upends 25 years of Federal Circuit jurisprudence, and on a legal requirement that every patent must satisfy. In this essay, I show how KSR dismantles two predicates that have long shaped Federal Circuit nonobviousness cases - namely, the intertwined premises that hindsight-driven distortion is the gravest risk to an accurate nonobviousness requirement, and that the person of ordinary skill in the art (from whose perspective nonobviousness is judge) is singularly uncreative. In place of hindsight dread and the dullard artisan, the Supreme Court gives us caution against overpatenting and the creative artisan. Perhaps most important is that, consistent with these new predicates, the Supreme Court revives its holding from 1950 that a combination claim, i.e., a claim that simply remixes prior art technologies according to their established functions, must be scrutinized with great caution because it is likely unpatentable. I propose an evidentiary presumption framework to regularize KSR's mandate.

Keywords: patent, nonobviousness, obviousness

Suggested Citation

Miller, Joseph Scott, Remixing Obviousness (July 23, 2007). Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-9, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1002454 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1002454

Joseph Scott Miller (Contact Author)

University of Georgia School of Law ( email )

225 Herty Drive
Athens, GA 30602
United States
706-542-5191 (Phone)
706-542-5556 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
306
Abstract Views
1,523
Rank
180,971
PlumX Metrics