Frequently, the biggest obstacle to patentability is the requirement of “nonobviousness.” All too often, a patent examiner will invoke the talismanic “KSR,” while rejecting claims as obvious in light of prior art references combined on the basis of “common sense.” Well, this abhorrent practice may be coming to an end. (In re Ravi Vaidyanathan)

A patent is invalid if it is shown to be “obvious” in view of a combination of prior art references (35 USC §103). Patentees, of course, will argue that the proposed combination of references is the product of “impermissible hindsight.” In support of such arguments, the patentees will point to “secondary indicia of patentability.”

A recent decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (In Re: `318 Patent Infringement Litigation) has cast new light on the tension between two sometimes conflicting requirements for patent validity: “nonobviousness” and “enablement.”

In order to be valid, a patent must claim subject matter that, as a whole, would not have been obvious, at the time the invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.¹