The Supreme Court 4/30/07 gave guidance on when an invention should be considered “obvious,” and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The unanimous ruling said, "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." A court's analysis of a patent claim "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claim's specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
The winning party was supported by amicus briefs filed by twenty-four intellectual property law professors and by a consortium of major corporations, including Microsoft and Cisco. Amici contended that not only was the Federal Circuit’s test inconsistent with the statutory language and Supreme Court precedent, but that it had the unfortunate effect of creating incentives for seeking patent rights on obvious extensions of existing technologies.
This case represents the first time in 30 years that the Supreme Court has focused on the obviousness standard for patentability. It is important for every individual or company that seeks or holds a U.S. patent, as the Court has provided an expansive and flexible approach to the obviousness question.