Difference between revisions of "KSR Int'l v. Teleflex"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: In ''KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), a unanimous United States Supreme Court invalidated a patent by emphasizing the statutory prohibition on patenting a ...)
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
In ''KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), a unanimous [[United States Supreme Court]] invalidated a [[patent]] by emphasizing the statutory prohibition on patenting a design that is obvious:
+
In '''''KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.''''', 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), a unanimous [[United States Supreme Court]] invalidated a [[patent]] by emphasizing the statutory prohibition on patenting a design that is obvious:
  
 
:Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
 
:Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."

Latest revision as of 03:28, May 3, 2008

In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), a unanimous United States Supreme Court invalidated a patent by emphasizing the statutory prohibition on patenting a design that is obvious:

Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court.