## Facts

- Teleflex held an exclusive license to a patent claiming an adjustable automobile pedal assembly for electronic throttle control, including an electronic position sensor attached at a fixed pivot point.
- KSR made adjustable pedal systems and, after a customer’s shift to electronic throttles, added a modular electronic sensor to its adjustable pedal design.
- Prior art disclosed: adjustable pedal assemblies with fixed pivots; placement of pedal position sensors in the pedal assembly; and mounting sensors on fixed structural components to reduce wire wear and improve reliability.
- Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of the patent’s claim covering the fixed-pivot sensor configuration; KSR argued the claim was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
- The district court granted summary judgment for KSR, finding the claimed combination of an adjustable pedal with a known sensor placement to be obvious.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, applying a strict “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test and finding insufficient explicit prior-art guidance to combine the elements as claimed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the proper obviousness standard and the Federal Circuit’s use of the TSM test.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Circuit’s rigid application of the TSM test is consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Supreme Court precedent governing obviousness.
2. Whether the challenged claim combining an adjustable pedal with an electronic sensor mounted at a fixed pivot point is obvious in light of the prior art.
3. Whether summary judgment of invalidity was proper on the obviousness record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment.
- The Court held the Federal Circuit applied § 103 too rigidly by treating TSM as a mandatory, narrowly constrained requirement.
- Applying a flexible obviousness analysis, the Court held the claim invalid as obvious because it combined familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
- The Court concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact preventing summary judgment under the correct legal standard.

## Legal Principles

- Obviousness under § 103 is governed by the Graham framework: scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations.
- The TSM concept may be used as an evidentiary aid, but it cannot be applied as a rigid rule requiring an explicit prior-art statement directing the precise combination.
- Factfinders may consider common sense, ordinary creativity, and reasonable inferences about what a person of ordinary skill would do when faced with known problems.
- A combination of familiar elements using known methods is likely obvious when it yields predictable results.
- A reason to combine prior-art elements may arise from any known need or problem in the field, including design incentives and market pressures, not solely from the patentee’s stated problem.
- “Obvious to try” can support obviousness when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and a skilled person has reason to pursue the known options.

## Conclusion

The Court held that obviousness analysis must be flexible and may rely on common-sense inferences about skilled artisans, rejecting a rigid, formulaic TSM requirement; under that approach, the claimed adjustable pedal with a fixed-pivot electronic sensor was a predictable combination of known elements and therefore invalid as obvious under § 103.


KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)