“Whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held ‘obvious,’ and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), in the absence of some proven ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed.’”
“[T]he results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss [v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1851),]and codified in § 103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose. . . . In rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with § 103 and our precedents.”
