Isn't It Obvious? How Klein's Definition of Analogous Prior Art Conflicts with the Supreme Court's Vision for Obviousness

• Author: Samantha M. Rollins
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2013
• Pages: 1377-1397

1377

Isn’t It Obvious? How Klein’s Definition of

Analogous Prior Art Conflicts with the

Supreme Court’s Vision for Obviousness

Samantha M. Rollins

ABSTRACT: The Supreme Court has, in recent years, emphasized the

importance of retaining fact-based inquiries in determining a patent’s

validity over the use of bright-line tests developed by the Federal Circuit. In

light of the Supreme Court’s trend, the recent Federal Circuit decision In re

Klein presents a surprising insistence on maintaining rigid rules-based tests

in the doctrine of analogous prior art. This is especially true considering the

Supreme Court decision KSR, which emphasized extreme flexibility in the

related doctrine of obviousness. This Note examines Klein in light of KSR,

and suggests a test for analogous-prior-art determinations that better aligns

with the Supreme Court’s vision of patent law than the test apparently used

in Klein.

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1379

II. HISTORICAL TRENDS IN RULE CREATION AND ELIMINATION IN

PATENT LAW ........................................................................................ 1379

A. SUPREME COURT INVOLVEMENT IN PATENT-LAW DEVELOPMENT ...... 1380

B. KSR: USING STANDARDS, NOT TESTS, TO DETERMINE OBVIOUSNESS 1382

C. OBVIOUSNESS AND THE ANALOGOUS-PRIOR-ART DETERMINATION .... 1385

III. IN RE KLEIN: THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS .......................................... 1387

A. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CONSIDERS KLEIN’S INVENTION ........ 1387

B. HOW KLEIN MAY MODIFY THE LANDSCAPE OF THE OBVIOUSNESS

DETERMINATION ............................................................................ 1389

1. How Klein Gives Inventors an Incentive To Narrowly

Define the Problem To Be Solved ...................................... 1390

 J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2013; B.S., The University of

Illinois, 2005. I would like to thank the student writers and editors of Volumes 97 and 98 of the

Iowa Law Review for their hard work on this Note. I also thank Professor Jason Rantanen for his

input and advice. Finally, I thank my family and my fiancé for their endless support.

1378 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 98:1377

2. A Reality Check: How Much Impact Is Klein Likely To

Have? ..................................................................................... 1392

C. WAS KLEIN INCORRECTLY DECIDED? ............................................... 1394

IV. TOWARD A UNIFYING THEORY OF OBVIOUSNESS ................................. 1395

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 1396