Teleflex, Inc. sued KSR International, claiming that one of KSR's products infringed Teleflex's patent[1] on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control. KSR argued that the combination of the two elements was obvious, and the claim was therefore not patentable. The district court ruled in favor of KSR, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in January 2005.

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and that 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," referring to the Federal Circuit's application of the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test.[3]

======================================================

In the above Teleflex claim 4 litigation for infringement..I guess utilizing a pedal actuated... cable / string / chain / a stick to administer an action is now considered an obvious ground of non patentability....

What do you think?

SOO0000...how non-obvious are e.Digitals teachings? With all the chatter and the Supreme court opinion....the test of obviousness of claims had to be rigid in granting the recent e.Digital patents.

With that, the re-exams have to now have some strength for non obvious considerations.

doni