Week 7 Assignment 2- Obviousness further explained
Specifically I will look at the KSR case and the evolution of Obviousness as explained in class and online sources.

Teleflex sues KSR.
The basic idea is Teleflex has a patent on wireless transmission of stimulus from pedals to internal parts of a car engine instead of wired transmission of such stimulus (such as pushing the gas pedal with your foot which leads to a sensor that then increases air output/intake and increased gas usage).
KSR switched from the industry standard wires to wireless transmitters and Teleflex sued for patent infringement.
KSR wins in District Court. Teleflex wins in Appeals Court. KSR wins in Supreme court.

Both Wins were based on Article 103 which states basically that a patent is obvious if at the time a person with a basic knowledge of the prior art and field could have come up with the patent.

The single loss was based on the TSM test which stands for Teaching, Suggestion, and Motivation. The basic idea is that even if the patent was obvious to someone with a basic knowledge of the prior art and the field if there was no specific explicit "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" to either combine certain ideas or apply an idea to a slightly different field then it is not obvious.

The TSM test was the earlier method of determining obviousness which took a very conservative reading of obvious, so that unless something was explicitly explained then someone else could patent it as non obvious. The newer doctrine based on 103 that was put in place by this ruling allows for a more implicit hint at what is considered obvious so that even if something is not explicitly stated, but anyone with a basic knowledge of the prior art and the field could at the time come up with the patent then it is obvious.

This has led to the invalidation of many patent infringement claims as the previous TSM test was much more infavor of people with a patent regardless of if it was actually practically obvious or not.