While the Supreme Court considers KSR v. Teleflex, one hand of the Federal Circuit polishes the TSM test and the other tarnishes it
As the Supreme Court considers the propriety of the teaching suggestion motivation test for determining whether a combination of references is proper in an obviousness analysis, the Federal Circuit has issued a pair of decisions that, taken together, highlight the confusion and lack of clarity that many see as the fundamental problem with the test.
An ironic result,
indeed, considering that the first decision – penned by Chief Judge Michel – was clearly written as a resounding defense of the TSM test.
One hand polishes the test…..
As described by Justice Scalia during the KSR oral argument, the Federal Circuit tried to “polish up” the TSM test in Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick. The Dystar panel saw an opportunity, in essence, to write an amicus brief for consideration by the Supreme Court in KSR. Writing for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Michel penned a detailed defense of the TSM test and explained that, despite being misunderstood by many, the test is quite flexible and does not require an explicit motivation.
…while the other tarnishes it…
Oddly, six weeks after the decision in Dystar and less than two weeks before oral argument in KSR, a completely different panel of the Federal Circuit summarily dismissed a question of whether a motivation to combine existed in Optivus Technology v. Loma Linda University Medical Center. The panel gave its motivation analysis in a single sentence:
“Here, there is no question that the CDR establishes that a person having a working familiarity with particle beam technology as it relates to cancer treatment, motivated by the need for more effective and efficient proton therapy facilities, would have been led to combine the University of Washington’s neutron therapy facility with the proton beam therapy design outlined in the CDR.”
That’s it. There is no question. Now go away.
This substantial omission of an analysis of the motivation issue highlights the arbitrary nature of the test and certainly bolsters the argument for its demise. The timing of the decision in Optivus Technology in relation to Dystar only magnifies its message.
It’s hard to imagine how these two decisions, taken together, could bode well for maintaining the test in its current form.
You might enjoy these related posts:
- KSR v. Teleflex - The Supreme Court reveals its frustration with the motivation/suggestion test…and contempt for the Federal Circuit And now we wait. Yesterday, the much-anticipated oral argument was...
- Here we go again - US Supreme Court to consider reforming standard for obviousness Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited decision on the...
- San Jose Mercury News - The Federal Circuit has contributed mightily to the madness The San Jose Mercury News is running an interesting editorial...
- Supreme Court set to steal the patent reform spotlight a second time? The timing of the Supreme Court's decision to hear the...
- Supreme Court to enter the patent reform debate? The original reports that are viewed by many as catalysts...
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
I still think it a shame that the EPO’s TSM test isn’t given more attention in USA. After all, it was created in order to achieve consistency of examination of patentability in the early days (1978 onwards) at the EPO, when first drafts of Examiners were arriving in Munich from their national Patent Offices in 12 different European countries, carrying with them 12 wildly different patent laws and examination traditions. Consistency on obviousness had to be established - and fast. The EPO (Wallace and Cadman UK Patent Office guys in charge) succeeded triumphantly. The Problem & Solution Approach is a TSM test, with a rigorous sequence of analysis steps. Like riding a bike, it is hard to grasp it when you have a short attention span, but ridiculously easy once you have got the hang of it. Having seen the level of argument, in the recent oral proceedings in TSR, I can see why nobody thought it a good idea to try to tell the Supreme Ct judges about Problem & Solution. Nevertheless, a shame.