How does KSR v. Teleflex impact the analysis of obviousness?

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based)BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex significantly impacted the analysis of obviousness in patent examination. Key points include:

  • Rejection of a rigid application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test
  • Emphasis on a more flexible approach to obviousness
  • Recognition that common sense and ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art should be considered

The MPEP states: “The KSR decision reinforced earlier decisions that validated a more flexible approach to providing reasons for obviousness.”

This decision allows examiners to rely on implicit teachings, common sense, and the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ when considering obviousness.

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability MPEP 2141 - Examination Guidelines For Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Patent Law Patent Procedure
Tags: Aia Practice, Claim Subject Matter, Nonanalogous Art 102, Same Field