1. KSR vs. Teleflex IEOR 190G Simon Xu
A relatively well known Supreme Court case happened in 2007, KSR vs. Teleflex, where Teleflex claimed that KSR had infringed on its patent on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control.
KSR vs. Teleflex

2. Defendant: KSR Intl. Manufacturing of All Pedal Systems
Adjustable and fixed pedal modules
Foot and hand-operated brakes
Electronic throttle controls
Electronic sensors
KSR is a Canadian autoparts manufacturer. They manufacture all sorts of pedal systems, and shown are electronic throttle controls and sensors, and are over 50 years old. KSR’s biggest buyers include Nissan, and unfortunately, General Motors.
Defendant: KSR Intl.

3. Plaintiff: Teleflex Inc.
Diversified Global Company
Medical
Aerospace
Commercial
Over 60 years old. Makes Catheters, actuators, and of course, wire rope. The last thing is used for suspension bridges and stuff. They happen to be a competitor to KSR.
Plaintiff: Teleflex Inc.

4. Technical Background Vehicle Control Sends Signal to Pedal and Sensor
Computer
Controls
Throttle
The technical foundation for the case lies under a very simple flowchart. When you push down on the vehicle control pedal and sensor, it sends a signal to the computer which would then control the throttle. Why can’t you connect the pedal to a cable or another mechanical link? Vertically challenged drivers will have to adjust their seat position, and this still might not be favorable due to deep footwells. Either way, the features are expensive.
KSR previously obtained a patent for cable actuated throttles, but wanted to make a pedal compatible with trucks so it required a modular sensor.
Technical Background

5. Technical Background Butterfly Valve Throttle
The throttle is the component in an internal combustion engine that indirectly controls the amount of fuel burned each cycle.
Intake
Combustible mixtures are emplaced in the combustion chamber
Compression
The mixtures are placed under pressure
Combustion/Expansion
The mixture is burnt, almost invariably a deflagration, although a few systems involve detonation. The hot mixture is expanded, pressing on and moving parts of the engine and performing useful work.
Exhaust
The cooled combustion products are exhausted into the atmosphere
Technical Background

6. This patent was issued by Engelgau for Teleflex Incorporated on May 29th. This gives Teleflex the right to build
The Patent

7. Side profile of a car drawing. Don’t know why I included this picture
Side profile of a car drawing. Don’t know why I included this picture. Number 28 is the electronic throttle control. 30 is the engine throttle. 32 is the signal.
The Patent

8. The Patent Claim 4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12) comprising:
a support (18) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle structure (20);
an adjustable pedal assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in force and aft directions with respect to said support (18);
a pivot (24) for pivotally supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22) with respect to said support (18) and defining a pivot axis (26); and
an electronic control (28) attached to said support (18) for controlling a vehicle system;
said apparatus (12) characterized by said electronic control (28) being responsive to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32) that corresponds to pedal arm position as said pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26) between rest and applied positions wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24).
Originally, the patent was not allowed for other broader Why the patent was allowed in the first place. Because of the inclusion of the constant pivot.
The Patent

9. The Patent

10. The Case DISTRICT COURT APPEALS COURT Ruling: Favor Teleflex
Ruling: Favor KSR
Basis: Section 103
APPEALS COURT
Ruling: Favor Teleflex
Basis: TSM Test
SUPREME COURT
Ruling: Favor KSR
Basis: Section 103
results of the case. District court’s look
The Case

11. The Case How long did it take? 2002: Teleflex sues KSR
2002: KSR counters
2003: District rules in favor of KSR
2005: Federal Appeals overrules
2007: Supreme Court reverses
How long did it take?
The Case

12. “Obviousness” Title 35 USC Section 103
A patent may not be obtained though the invention […] if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Graham vs. Deere
This is section Very nebulous definition. The next time any of your friends ever say anything overtly blatant, and you’re feeling clever you can shut them up with section 103.
“Obviousness”

13. “Obviousness” TSM Test
there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious
Teaching suggestion motivation, aimed to prevent hindsight bias. Used as a litmus test.
“Obviousness”

14. “Obviousness” Supreme Court: Narrow and rigid application of TSM test
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not a automaton.”
What the Appeals court should have done was consult the
“Obviousness”

15. Implications Application of the TSM Test PHOSITA
KSR vs. Teleflex cited in about 60% of decisions related to obviousness (reversal rates still the same)
TSM Test: It’s no good.
PHOSITA: person having ordinary skill in the art (section 103) is easier to prove. People will use obviousness more often as a defense to patent infringement.
Implications