cstr

Letter to Prof. Kieff,

As for the KSR, I read the Supreme Court opinion before. I am curious about this decision. First, I know the KSR decision in the CAFC was not a precedent since it was not published. So does the Supreme Court really change the law? Because the KSR decision in the CAFC is not a law, I think the Supreme Court only provides another aspect of how to deal with 103 cases.

Secondly, I think the TSM standard is developed by the CAFC. In the Supreme Court's KSR, the Court has noticed that the TSM standard is not rigid or flexible. I think that the Court just wants us to know that the TSM standard is just one way to strike down a patent on the ground of 103. The Court just frees the CAFC from having to apply the TSM standard in every 103 case. I mean now the CAFC is not bound to the TSM standard, but rather the CAFC can begin to develope other standards for dealing with the 103 issue.

No matter how the rule of 103 will go, I think it is harder and harder to get a patent in the U.S.