Obviousness: A Paradigm Shift? - Part I

First things first, SpicyIP wishes its readers a very happy Independence day!
Restatements sometimes, rather most of the time, help us understand concepts better and may even lead to new theories. This is particularly true of the concept of obviousness; though obviousness has been the subject-matter of quite a number of decisions and disquisitions, every subsequent judicial pronouncement brings out a feature of its mien which hasn’t been dealt with before or which when restated brings out a new perspective. This is not because the concept is nebulous, but because it is inherently fluid and subjective. As more and more hitherto unknown or unfathomable situations present themselves, obviousness too adapts itself accordingly without giving up what is characteristic of it- Change and the ability to map change. This criterion necessarily has to remain dynamic in its application for it reflects the rate of change of technology or to give it a negative definition, it mirrors the changing standards of evaluation of obscurity or obsolescence of knowledge. In fact, such semantic agility suitably equips it to keep pace with technology, which is an ideal quality expected of every branch and precept of law- to mirror life. Thus, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that this enquiry (for those with a proclivity towards American usage, it is inquiry) retains the nimble-footedness of a mountain goat and shouldn’t run amuck like an oscitant directionless pachyderm.

The Supreme Court of the United States in KSR v. Teleflex (2007) lent a touch of dynamism to the concept of obviousness by advocating a more flexible approach without altogether replacing the three step Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test. More recently, the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, in Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Conor Medsystems Inc (2008)uncovered, though not with complete success, another facet of obviousness in the process of adjudicating the issues involved. Though both these judgments in general discuss obviousness, there exists an important distinction between the two; where KSR elaborates on the pros and cons of an “obvious to try” standard vis-à-vis a rigorous standard of obviousness, Angiotech deals with the principle of sound prediction of the technological success of an invention revealed in the patent. It must be understood that the principle of sound prediction has a close connection to an “obvious to try” line of argument.

Before one moves on to discuss in detail, the most important fact to be borne is that KSR dealt with an adjustable gas pedal with an electronic sensor located at a fixed pivot to activate the engine throttle, while Angiotech is concerned with a taxol-coated stent. The fields of technology differ and so the decisions & principles evolved have to be understood in the light of these technologies before one applies them to other branches because obviousness obviously depends on the field of technology as well as the facts of a particular case involving the technology. Accordingly, one shall start with a discussion on the principles evolved in KSR followed by its comparison with Angiotech.

KSR v. Teleflex (2007)
Forum: Supreme Court of the United States
Plaintiff- Respondent- Patentee: Teleflex Inc
Defendant- Appellant: KSR Inc
Decision: Appeal Allowed, Patent Invalidated.

Facts of the Case
Teleflex Inc was granted a patent for an “Adjustable Pedal Assembly with Electronic Throttle Control” on May 29, 2001. In 2003, the company filed a suit for infringement of its patent by its competitor KSR in the district court, which upon a counterclaim from KSR granted a summary judgment against the validity of the patent on grounds of obviousness. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling; KSR approached the Supreme Court under a writ of certiorari. Technology Involved in the Patent

The Teleflex Patent US 6237565 claimed a position-adjustable pedal assembly in cars with electronic pedal position sensor attached to a fixed support member of the pedal assembly. The adjustable pedal assembly was designed to accommodate drivers of various heights and the electronic pedal position sensor was aimed at removing problems associated with chafing of the wire, connecting the accelerator and the engine throttle, caused by pedal movement. The location of the electronic sensor was one of the primary embodiments claimed in the patent.

Prior Art
1.The Asano patent revealed a support structure whereby, when the pedal location is adjusted, one of the pedal's pivot points stays fixed.
2.The Redding patent revealed a different, sliding mechanism where both the pedal and the pivot point are adjusted.
3.The Rixon patent revealed an electronic pedal position sensor is located in the pedal housing. But this location posed problems of chafing of the wire.
4.To overcome this, the Smith patent suggested that instead of placing the sensor on a moving part, it was desirable to attach it to a fixed support member such that the sensor is responsive to the pedal's pivot shaft.

Issue

“Is the Teleflex patent obvious in the light of the above mentioned prior art?”

Discussion

The instinctive answer to this question is yes, but doesn’t the law require judgments to be reasoned and reasonable and not intuitive? Yes, it does; which, in one’s humble opinion, is precisely what the KSR judgment is all about. Merely because the prior art had been laid out in such convenient fashion, one could not cursorily term the patent obvious without giving cogent reasons for the same and proving each of those reasons from the prior art i.e. the prior art must contain an explicit proof or an inference which led an ordinary person skilled in the art to conclude that the so-called “invention” in the patent was banal. This was to ensure against what the US Supreme Court called a “hindsight bias” and which i referred to as trivialisation of the patent owing to an afterthought.

To explain this better, one would like to bring in the concept of anticipation. Had a single hypothetical patent P (which, let us assume, was granted before the Teleflex patent) claimed each of the embodiments claimed in the aforementioned prior art, the patent P would have anticipated the Teleflex patent. Since each of the embodiments had been claimed separately in different patents, it had become imperative for a challenger to prove, that a single invention combining all the features was well within the reach of a person skilled in the art and this was to be achieved by submitting evidence which proved that the state of art had already indicated or motivated such combination prior to the priority date of the Teleflex patent.

In other words, to put it in a relatable fashion, the Court required the challenger to show that every claim or feature had been “anticipated” separately in different documents which when combined with the general developments or thought process/common sense of an ordinary practitioner of the art at the time of filing of the Teleflex application, made the patent seem commonplace. This, according to the Supreme Court, should be the spirit of enquiry in every “combination patent” that stands the danger of being deep-sixed on grounds of obviousness. Thus, it is clear that the Court did not seek to do away with the TSM test altogether but only ensured that it was not caught in a dogmatic quagmire thereby giving it more ropes. This is in line with the well-established law that anticipation is a matter of fact whereas obviousness is a matter of law and hence one had to go deeper into the prior art than limiting oneself to a superficial analysis of the prior art solely on face value.

However, the Supreme Court held that “the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” Most commentators perceive this to be a dilution of the standard of obviousness. The difference between these two standards is of utmost importance for it goes to the root of the question- knowledge of the ordinary person skilled in the art. Since technology has a science to it, the solutions chosen by two people working in different places oblivious to each other’s thought processes, would nevertheless be the same since both have been trained in more or less similar fashion and by default, technology might limit the number of feasible solutions which every person skilled in the art is bound to test (a kind of Prisoner’s Dilemma). So at a given point in time, several inventors may be working on dual-spark plug ignition in a single cylinder engine because their knowledge and common sense taught them that the use of the second spark plug helps in fuller combustion of the fuel and hence higher thermal efficiency of the engine.

This explains instances where two different individuals in the past have come up with the same technology; take J.C.Bose and Marconi working on the radio or parallel wartime efforts on atomic bomb during World War II by Japanese, German and American Scientists. More so if the two individuals are competitors, it is but natural for them to take almost a similar approach. Merely because they have taken the same route, it does not follow that the final product is obvious because the path refers to the inventive concept and the subject-matter of the patent invariably refers to the specific inventive step. So one must not cut the head to fit the hat by an “obvious to try” standard in such cases.

However, this is where the argument needs further explanation. If two inventors take similar paths, they do so in obvious belief that their quest may lead to something unique, but both the inventors have a fairly good idea as to what the invention could be. So how is it right for us not to adopt the "obvious to try" standard, because according to this standard if similar efforts lead to predictable results, that by itself should render the effort as well as the product of the effort obvious. This may be resolved thus. An "obvious to try" standard comes into play when the grant of a patent for a particular invention, which in the natural course of the technology was the obvious direction in which the industry as a whole was expected to move, could hamper future efforts. But the problem with this standard is that it may add to the woes of a genuine patentee by adding to the already growing list of the challenger's arsenal whereby all that the challenger has to do is to show by some vague reference that the invention was "obvious to try" in the first place. To ensure against this, one is of the opinion that it is better to stick to a regular "obviousness" approach laced with common sense.

The Supreme Court further elaborated on another important question by pointing to the approach taken by the Court of Appeals. According to Teleflex, the Asano patent was intended to achieve a “constant ratio”, i.e. irrespective of the position of the pedal assembly, the amount of force applied by any driver of any height would remain the same for a given position. This, according to Teleflex, was different from its objective of creating a “less complex, less expensive adjustable pedal assembly”. Consequently, since the objectives differed, the use of the same Asano mechanism for a different purpose in the Teleflex design, according to Teleflex, gave it a safe harbour from obviousness. The Court of Appeals seemed to agree with this argument. Fundamentally, the difference of opinion between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals was about construing the claims of the patent in the light of the problem which the patent claimed to solve. One would like to illustrate the problem as follows:

1. According to the Court of Appeals, if the Patent X claimed to solve a problem A and Patent Y claimed to solve a problem B, then a Patent Z could be termed obvious only if it combined Patents X and Y in a manner which did not change the function and objective/motivation of X and Y as envisaged by the patentees of X and Y.

2.According to the Supreme Court, this was too narrow a construction. It said that if the Patent X claimed to solve a problem A and Patent Y claimed to solve a problem B, then a Patent Z could be termed obvious even if patents X and Y had been used for a purpose/motivation different from the actual purpose they were invented for in the first place, despite performing the same function.

Here’s where the earlier point on law catching up with technology comes into play. Assuming that we are to go by the first proposition, made by the Court of Appeals, it would not be far from the truth to state that such a proposition was made in complete oblivion to the developments in transdisciplinary and synergistic approach which technology has increasingly taken in the last few decades. The history of modern science abounds with examples of such instances; carbon propylene which was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO, India) under the stewardship of Dr. Abdul Kalam (long before he became the 11th President of India) as part of the Integrated Missile Development Programme (IMDP), was used in the manufacture of light-weight calipers for patients affected by poliomyelitis and cerebral palsy, which proves the point on development in one area affecting or influencing innovation in another. Probably, this is an example of non-obvious adaptation.

There could be adaptations which are more obvious which is precisely what the US Supreme Court was trying to drive at. Merely because a particular invention had been patented citing its utility in one particular area, the possibility of its use, rather obvious use, in other fields for a similar function but a different objective is not barred and given the synergistic approach these days, negating such a possibility would allow for grant of a lot of frivolous patents. Hence, before arriving at a decision on obviousness of an invention, the state of art, the knowledge of the person skilled in the art and the path which technology/industry was taking at the time of filing have to be considered.

At the time of filing of the Teleflex application, use of electronic components in mechanical links was on the rise since computers were being used to control the throttling in cars. Consequently, it was just a matter of time before an electronic throttle was combined with the adjustable pedal assembly.(Had such a combination been used in a diametrically different field, say biotechnology or had been put to use in a miniature model, then possibly it would have been non-obvious) Hence, on the basis of the evidence submitted by KSR the US Supreme Court invalidated the Teleflex patent.

Principles Evolved in the KSR Judgment
1. The TSM test is not to be construed as a straightforward formula for testing the non-obviousness of a patent, particularly “combination patents”.
2. The question of obviousness has to be addressed irrespective of the objective which the patent ostensibly seeks to achieve.
3. Strong evidence from which one may prove directly or infer obviousness has to be put in proper perspective considering the course which technology was likely to take. However, mere cursory statements made in the name of expert testimonies cannot be relied upon. Expressed differently, an “obvious to try” could be used to prove obviousness.

The next part of this discussion shall contain an analysis of the Angiotech case and its purported departure from the principles of KSR.