On April 30, 2007 the United States Supreme Court handed down an important decision on the scope of obviousness under 35 USC § 103.
Although the case concerned the placement of an electronic control, (i.e., a throttle control) on a vehicle control pedal, language in the decision could affect on the scope afforded claims drawn to computer implemented inventions, such as automated systems and business method patents.
Applying a “teaching, suggestion, motivation test” the Federal Circuit had reversed a District Court’s finding that a claimed vehicle control pedal was obvious.
Read the complete article by clicking on the link below.
Reprinted with permission from Portfolio Media, Inc.
Author(s)
Related Insights
August 8, 2025
Foley Ignite
The Rise of "Acquihiring" in a Post-Layoff Tech Sector
As a practicing M&A attorney representing both strategic acquirers and venture-backed targets, I have had a front row seat to the…
August 7, 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Tariffs and Your Contracts: Why do pricing and tax provisions matter?
President Trump’s shakeup of U.S. trade policy with its approach to tariffs is costing companies billions of dollars.
August 7, 2025
Foley Viewpoints
USPTO Addresses Reports of New Patent Fee Structure
In a recent webinar hosted by the Licensing Executives Society, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart…