KSR v. Teleflex

In KSR v. Teleflex (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for the PTO or the courts to reject claims or hold patents invalid if those patents are based on a combination of references. Prior to this, the cases held that an invention should not be held obvious over several prior-art references unless there is a suggestion, motivation, or teaching that the references can or should be combined. This case held that there must be some apparent reason in the prior art to justify combining the references. For example, the existence of a problem can make it obvious to try various solutions. The prior art doesn’t have to be directed to the precise problem, so long as the references still perform their same functions. If you argue that the combination was not suggested by the prior art, state (if applicable) that the problem solved by your invention is different and the references perform new functions in your combination and the result you achieve was not predictable.