1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 04–1350. Argued November 28, 2006—Decided April 30, 2007 To control a conventional automobile’s speed, the driver depresses orreleases the gas pedal, which interacts with the throttle via a cable or other mechanical link. Because the pedal’s position in the footwell normally cannot be adjusted, a driver wishing to be closer or farther from it must either reposition himself in the seat or move the seat, both of which can be imperfect solutions for smaller drivers in carswith deep footwells. This prompted inventors to design and patentpedals that could be adjusted to change their locations. The Asano patent reveals a support structure whereby, when the pedal locationis adjusted, one of the pedal’s pivot points stays fixed. Asano is also designed so that the force necessary to depress the pedal is the sameregardless of location adjustments. The Redding patent reveals a dif-ferent, sliding mechanism where both the pedal and the pivot pointare adjusted. In newer cars, computer-controlled throttles do not operate throughforce transferred from the pedal by a mechanical link, but open andclose valves in response to electronic signals. For the computer to know what is happening with the pedal, an electronic sensor musttranslate the mechanical operation into digital data. Inventors had obtained a number of patents for such sensors. The so-called ’936 patent taught that it was preferable to detect the pedal’s position in the pedal mechanism, not in the engine, so the patent disclosed apedal with an electronic sensor on a pivot point in the pedal assem-bly. The Smith patent taught that to prevent the wires connectingthe sensor to the computer from chafing and wearing out, the sensorshould be put on a fixed part of the pedal assembly rather than in or on the pedal’s footpad. Inventors had also patented self-contained modular sensors, which can be taken off the shelf and attached to any2 KSR INT’L CO. v. TELEFLEX INC. Syllabus mechanical pedal to allow it to function with a computer-controlled throttle. The ’068 patent disclosed one such sensor. Chevrolet also manufactured trucks using modular sensors attached to the pedal support bracket, adjacent to the pedal and engaged with the pivotshaft about which the pedal rotates. Other patents disclose elec-tronic sensors attached to adjustable pedal assemblies. For example,the Rixon patent locates the sensor in the pedal footpad, but is known for wire chafing. After petitioner KSR developed an adjustable pedal system for carswith cable-actuated throttles and obtained its ’976 patent for the de-sign, General Motors Corporation (GMC) chose KSR to supply ad-justable pedal systems for trucks using computer-controlled throttles.To make the ’976 pedal compatible with the trucks, KSR added a modular sensor to its design. Respondents (Teleflex) hold the exclu-sive license for the Engelgau patent, claim 4 of which discloses a posi-tion-adjustable pedal assembly with an electronic pedal position sen-sor attached a fixed pivot point. Despite having denied a similar, broader claim, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) had al-lowed claim 4 because it included the limitation of a fixed pivot posi-tion, which distinguished the design from Redding’s. Asano was nei-ther included among the Engelgau patent’s prior art references normentioned in the patent’s prosecution, and the PTO did not have be-fore it an adjustable pedal with a fixed pivot point. After learning of KSR’s design for GMC, Teleflex sued for infringement, asserting thatKSR’s pedal system infringed the Engelgau patent’s claim 4. KSR countered that claim 4 was invalid under §103 of the Patent Act,which forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between thesubject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the timethe invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U. S. 1, 17–18, set out an objective analysis for applying §103: “[T]he scope and content of the prior art are . . . determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are . . . ascertained; and the level of ordinaryskill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background the obvi-ousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but un-solved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light tothe circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” While the sequence of these questions mightbe reordered in any particular case, the factors define the controlling inquiry. However, seeking to resolve the obviousness question withmore uniformity and consistency, the Federal Circuit has employed a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test, under which a pat-3 Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) Syllabus ent claim is only proved obvious if the prior art, the problem’s nature, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art revealssome motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings. The District Court granted KSR summary judgment. After review-ing pedal design history, the Engelgau patent’s scope, and the rele-vant prior art, the court considered claim 4’s validity, applying Gra-ham’s framework to determine whether under summary-judgmentstandards KSR had demonstrated that claim 4 was obvious. The court found “little difference” between the prior art’s teachings andclaim 4: Asano taught everything contained in the claim except usinga sensor to detect the pedal’s position and transmit it to a computercontrolling the throttle. That additional aspect was revealed in, e.g., the ’068 patent and Chevrolet’s sensors. The court then held that KSR satisfied the TSM test,
View Full Document
Unlocking...