About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2009)

handle is hein.journals/cstlr10 and id is 1 raw text is: The Columbia SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW www.stlr.org THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS: A CRITIQUE OF KSR' s UNWARRANTED REINTERPRETATION OF 'PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL Andrew B. Dzeguze' In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the Supreme Court took it upon itself to comment on the supposed knowledge and capacities of a person having ordinary skill in the art as used in 35 U.S.C. § 103. This phrase is a key component of analyzing whether patents are obvious and lack sufficient value to justify the award of a patent. The perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art is also used in virtually every meaningful standard in the field of patent law. Despite this significance, the Court felt no need to engage in any sort of structural or statutory analysis of the phrase. Instead, the Court at several points suggested that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have qualities that are not apparent from the plain language of the statute - such as creativity and insight beyond their immediate field. It may be that the Court did not realize that its statements regarding persons having ordinary skill in the art have significant implications both for patent cases involving obviousness and several other areas of the law. Therefore, this article seeks to fill the gaps left by the Court. By way of background, there is a discussion of the origins and evolution of the United States patent system and the development of the concept of obviousness over time. An effort at statutory construction of these terms is then made. The meanings so derived are then compared with the Court's statements in KSR to determine how (or if) they are consonant with precedent. Finally, as KSR is the law of the land, several potential 1 Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Illinois, Springfield. Adjunct Professor, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis. The views expressed are solely those of the author. My thanks to the numerous colleagues who have listened to my thoughts and read drafts of this paper, particularly David Quick of Ice Miller LLP in Indianapolis. Available at http:// wwrw.stir.orgcite.cgi?volume=1O&article= I This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most