KSR, a Canadian company, manufactures and supplies auto parts, including pedal systems. In 2000, KSR was chosen by General Motors Corporation (GMC or GM)to supply adjustable pedal systems for Chevrolet and GMC light trucks that used engines with computer-controlled throttles. KSR holds a US patent for “adjustable pedal system for cars with cable-actuated throttles” and KSR decided to include a modular sensor to its design to make it compatible with GMC trucks
As KSR’s competitor, TELEFLEX also designs and manufactures adjustable pedals. TELEFLEX is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,237,565 (the "Engelgau patent") and sued KSR for patent infringement (claim 4)
TSM Test has been laid down by the Federal Circuit which means Teaching/Suggestion/Motivation test for deciding the obviousness in the invention.
The update to KSR vs TELEFLEX was published in the Federal Register on 1st day of September 2010. These updated guidelines are intended primarily to be used by the office personnel’s along with the manual of patent examination procedure during examination. The USPTO is interested in receiving suggestions on this update which has been evolved recently in the field of obviousness.
This update has been developed as an internal matter of office management but not as a substantive rule. This update doesn’t have any effect under law.
More info: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21646.pdf
As KSR’s competitor, TELEFLEX also designs and manufactures adjustable pedals. TELEFLEX is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,237,565 (the "Engelgau patent") and sued KSR for patent infringement (claim 4)
TSM Test has been laid down by the Federal Circuit which means Teaching/Suggestion/Motivation test for deciding the obviousness in the invention.
The update to KSR vs TELEFLEX was published in the Federal Register on 1st day of September 2010. These updated guidelines are intended primarily to be used by the office personnel’s along with the manual of patent examination procedure during examination. The USPTO is interested in receiving suggestions on this update which has been evolved recently in the field of obviousness.
This update has been developed as an internal matter of office management but not as a substantive rule. This update doesn’t have any effect under law.
More info: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21646.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment