1_MC1 ._. 
Introduction_NN1 The_AT importance_NN1 of_IO intellectual_JJ property_NN1 ,_, especially_RR in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO patents_NN2 ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN an_AT1 integral_JJ component_NN1 of_IO United_NP1 States_NP1 (_( US_NP1 )_) commercial_JJ innovation_NN1 activity_NN1 ,_, and_CC subsequent_JJ economic_JJ growth_NN1 ,_, throughout_II much_DA1 of_IO the_AT nation_NN1 's_GE history_NN1 ._. 
Under_II Article_NN1 I_ZZ1 ,_, Section_NN1 8_MC of_IO the_AT US_NP1 Constitution_NN1 ,_, the_AT US_NP1 Congress_NN1 is_VBZ granted_VVN the_AT authority_NN1 to_TO define_VVI and_CC protect_VVI intellectual_JJ property_NN1 through_II the_AT issuance_NN1 of_IO patents_NN2 and_CC copyrights_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 patent_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN as_CSA "_" any_DD new_JJ and_CC useful_JJ process_NN1 ,_, machine_NN1 ,_, manufacture_NN1 ,_, or_CC composition_NN1 of_IO matter_NN1 ,_, or_CC any_DD new_JJ and_CC useful_JJ improvement_NN1 thereof_RR ._. 
What_DDQ a_AT1 patent_NN1 protects_VVZ is_VBZ an_AT1 "_" invention_NN1 "_" --_NN1 not_XX an_AT1 idea_NN1 or_CC suggestion_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 machine_NN1 or_CC process_NN1 is_VBZ implementing_VVG ._. 
The_AT US_NP1 Congress_NN1 has_VHZ the_AT authority_NN1 to_TO define_VVI intellectual_JJ property_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO patents_NN2 ,_, the_AT language_NN1 delineating_VVG technical_JJ requirements_NN2 that_CST an_AT1 inventor_NN1 must_VM satisfy_VVI before_II a_AT1 patent_NN1 is_VBZ granted_VVN ._. 
The_AT federal_JJ agency_NN1 responsible_JJ for_IF administering_VVG Congressional_JJ authority_NN1 for_IF granting_VVG patents_NN2 is_VBZ the_AT United_NP1 States_NP1 Patent_NN1 and_CC Trademark_NN1 Office_NN1 (_( USPTO_NP1 )_) ,_, a_AT1 unit_NN1 within_II the_AT U.S_NP1 ,_, Department_NN1 of_IO Commerce_NN1 ._. 
Before_CS a_AT1 standard_JJ utility_NN1 patent_NN1 is_VBZ granted_VVN (_( for_IF a_AT1 term_NN1 of_IO 20_MC years_NNT2 )_) however_RR ,_, it_PPH1 must_VM satisfy_VVI a_AT1 USPTO_NN1 patent_NN1 examiner_NN1 under_II the_AT so-called_JJ "_" preponderance_NN1 of_IO evidence_NN1 "_" standard_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX that_CST the_AT submitted_JJ plans_NN2 for_IF the_AT invention_NN1 reveal_VV0 (_( to_II the_AT patent_NN1 examiner_NN1 )_) that_CST the_AT invention_NN1 is_VBZ "_" useful_JJ ,_, novel_JJ and_CC non-obvious_JJ "_" ,_, or_CC as_CSA pertains_VVZ to_II the_AT latter_DA term_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI "_" obvious_JJ to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ ordinary_JJ skill_NN1 in_II the_AT art_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 pertains_VVZ ._. "_" 
This_DD1 "_" preponderance_NN1 of_IO evidence'_JJ standard_NN1 replaces_VVZ the_AT "_" flash_NN1 of_IO genius_NN1 "_" criterion_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX that_CST the_AT innovator_NN1 literally_RR experiences_VVZ a_AT1 moment_NN1 of_IO inspiration_NN1 ,_, exceeding_VVG ordinary_JJ skill_NN1 or_CC ingenuity_NN1 ,_, previously_RR utilized_VVN in_II the_AT government_NN1 patent_NN1 examination_NN1 process_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 last_MD criterion_NN1 for_IF the_AT granting_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 patent_NN1 --_NN1 that_CST the_AT invention_NN1 be_VBI "_" non-obvious_JJ "_" --_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN a_AT1 significant_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO concern_NN1 for_IF many_DA2 firms_NN2 in_II the_AT telecommunication_NN1 and_CC information_NN1 (_( T_ZZ1 &I);_NULL industries_NN2 as_CSA it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN applied_VVN by_II the_AT USPTO_NP1 (_( and_CC will_VM be_VBI discussed_VVN in_II greater_JJR detail_NN1 later_RRR in_II the_AT article_NN1 )_) ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 the_AT USPTO_NN1 ,_, the_AT subject_NN1 matter_NN1 (_( "_" invention_NN1 "_" )_) submitted_VVD for_IF patent_NN1 consideration_NN1 must_VM be_VBI sufficiently_RR different_JJ from_II technology_NN1 used_VVN or_CC described_VVN before_II (_( referred_VVN to_II as_RG "_" prior_JJ art_NN1 "_" )_) that_CST it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI "_" non-obvious_JJ "_" to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 possessing_VVG ordinary_JJ knowledge_NN1 in_II the_AT area_NN1 of_IO technology_NN1 related_VVN to_II the_AT invention_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX that_CST said_VVD person_NN1 would_VM not_XX know_VVI how_RRQ to_TO solve_VVI the_AT problem_NN1 at_II which_DDQ the_AT invention_NN1 is_VBZ focused_VVN by_II employing_VVG precisely_RR the_AT same_DA technique_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR ,_, does_VDZ one_PN1 define_VVI "_" non-obvious_JJ "_" by_II what_DDQ is_VBZ "_" obvious_JJ "_" ,_, i.e._REX modest_JJ differences_NN2 in_II the_AT proposed_JJ technology/invention_NN1 based_VVN substantially_RR on_II "_" prior_JJ art_NN1 "_" in_II the_AT field_NN1 ,_, or_CC establish_VV0 a_AT1 separate_JJ ,_, focused_VVD legal_JJ definition_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ analytic_JJ components_NN2 constitute_VV0 the_AT legal_JJ expression_NN1 of_IO "_" non-obvious_JJ "_" ?_? 
This_DD1 question_NN1 is_VBZ at_II the_AT heart_NN1 of_IO interpreting_VVG patent_NN1 scope_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX the_AT attendant_JJ challenges_NN2 which_DDQ result_VV0 from_II a_AT1 broad_JJ or_CC narrow_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ makes_VVZ up_RP a_AT1 "_" new_JJ ,_, novel_JJ and_CC non-obvious_JJ "_" technological_JJ advance._NNU 3_MC ._. 
US_NP1 Patent_NN1 Policy_NN1 Reports_VVZ :_: recommendations_NN2 on_II the_AT criteria_NN2 of_IO non-obviousness_NN1 Two_MC national_JJ reports_NN2 have_VH0 focused_VVN attention_NN1 on_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO "_" non-obviousness_NN1 "_" in_II the_AT granting_NN1 (_( and_CC judiciary_NN1 's_VBZ upholding_VVG )_) of_IO patent_NN1 rights_NN2 ._. 
In_II October_NPM1 2003_MC ,_, the_AT Federal_JJ Trade_NN1 Commission_NN1 released_VVN a_AT1 report_NN1 (_( To_II Promote_VV0 Innovation_NN1 :_: The_AT Proper_JJ Balance_NN1 of_IO Competition_NN1 and_CC Patent_NN1 Law_NN1 and_CC Policy_NN1 or_CC "_" FTC_NP1 Report_NN1 "_" )_) ,_, which_DDQ had_VHD its_APPGE genesis_NN1 in_II a_AT1 series_NN of_IO hearings_NN2 held_VVN in_II 2002_MC and_CC jointly_RR sponsored_VVN by_II the_AT FTC_NP1 and_CC US_NP1 Department_NN1 of_IO Justice_NN1 ,_, the_AT other_JJ national_JJ agency_NN1 responsible_JJ for_IF enforcing_VVG US_NP1 competition_NN1 policy_NN1 ,_, with_IW a_AT1 goal_NN1 of_IO improving_VVG the_AT understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT current_JJ relationship_NN1 between_II competition_NN1 and_CC patent_NN1 law_NN1 ._. 
Many_DA2 of_IO the_AT participants_NN2 in_II the_AT hearings_NN2 expressed_VVD concerns_NN2 about_II poor_JJ patent_NN1 quality_NN1 and_CC legal_JJ standards_NN2 that_CST may_VM inadvertently_RR create_VVI market_NN1 power_NN1 and_CC reduce_VVI industrial_JJ innovation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT FTC_NP1 Report_NN1 recognizes_VVZ the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 's_GE TSM_NP1 test_NN1 as_II a_AT1 core_NN1 assessment_NN1 component_NN1 of_IO the_AT "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 and_CC the_AT demanding_JJ standard_NN1 of_IO proof_NN1 that_CST the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 applies_VVZ to_II lower-level_JJ fact_NN1 finders_NN2 ,_, i.e._REX by_II insisting_VVG that_CST the_AT USPTO_NN1 examiners_NN2 very_RG clearly_RR "_" connect_VV0 the_AT dots_NN2 ._. "_" 
In_II the_AT following_JJ statement_NN1 ,_, the_AT FTC_NP1 recommends_VVZ that_CST certain_JJ legal_JJ standards_NN2 used_VMK to_TO evaluate_VVI whether_CSW a_AT1 patent_NN1 is_VBZ "_" obvious_JJ "_" be_VBI tightened_VVN :_: The_AT Commission_NN1 urges_VVZ that_CST in_II assessing_VVG 'obviousness_NN1 '_GE ,_, the_AT analysis_NN1 should_VM ascribe_VVI to_II the_AT person_NN1 having_VHG ordinary_JJ skill_NN1 in_II the_AT art_NN1 an_AT1 ability_NN1 to_TO combine_VVI or_CC modify_VVI prior_JJ art_NN1 references_VVZ that_CST are_VBR consistent_JJ with_IW the_AT creativity_NN1 and_CC problem-solving_NN1 skills_NN2 that_CST in_II fact_NN1 are_VBR characteristic_JJ of_IO those_DD2 having_VHG ordinary_JJ skill_NN1 in_II the_AT art_NN1 ._. 
Furthermore_RR ,_, the_AT FTC_NP1 Report_NN1 recommends_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 proper_JJ application_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 requirement_NN1 --_NN1 in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO the_AT "_" commercial_JJ success_NN1 test_NN1 "_" and_CC the_AT "_" suggestion_NN1 (_( TSM_NP1 )_) test_VV0 "_" --_NN1 is_VBZ crucial_JJ to_TO prevent_VVI the_AT issuance_NN1 of_IO questionable_JJ patents_NN2 ,_, including_II trivial_JJ patents_NN2 and_CC patents_NN2 on_II inventions_NN2 essentially_RR in_II the_AT public_JJ domain_NN1 ._. 
In_II 2004_MC ,_, the_AT National_JJ Research_NN1 Council_NN1 (_( NRC_NP1 )_) of_IO the_AT National_JJ Academies_NN2 of_IO Science_NN1 and_CC Engineering_NN1 released_VVN a_AT1 report_NN1 (_( A_ZZ1 Patent_JJ System_NN1 for_IF the_AT 21st_MD Century_NNT1 or_CC "_" NRC_NP1 Report_NN1 "_" )_) which_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT result_NN1 of_IO the_AT combined_JJ efforts_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 committee_NN1 of_IO patent_NN1 lawyers_NN2 ,_, economists_NN2 ,_, legal_JJ scholars_NN2 and_CC corporate_JJ executives_NN2 focusing_VVG their_APPGE intellectual_JJ prowess_NN1 on_II evaluating_VVG and_CC recommending_VVG improvements_NN2 in_II the_AT US_NP1 patent_NN1 system_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_MD recommendation_NN1 ,_, among_II a_AT1 total_NN1 of_IO seven_MC ,_, is_VBZ designed_VVN to_TO "_" reinvigorate_VVI the_AT non-obviousness_JJ standard_NN1 "_" of_IO patent_NN1 examination_NN1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 the_AT NRC_NP1 Report._NP1 4_MC ._. 
Patent_NN1 policy_NN1 discussion_NN1 The_AT first_MD of_IO these_DD2 new_JJ patent_NN1 quality_NN1 enhancement_NN1 programs_NN2 ,_, the_AT Accelerated_JJ Review_NN1 Option_NN1 ,_, administratively_RR began_VVD in_II August_NPM1 2006_MC and_CC gives_VVZ applications_NN2 priority_NN1 handling_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX a_AT1 final_JJ decision_NN1 within_II 12_MC months_NNT2 ,_, when_CS the_AT patent_NN1 applicant_NN1 provides_VVZ specific_JJ information_NN1 requested_VVN about_II prior_JJ art_NN1 pertaining_II21 to_II22 the_AT invention_NN1 being_VBG considered_VVN for_IF patenting_VVG --_NN1 thus_RR giving_VVG patent_NN1 examiners_NN2 increased_JJ access_NN1 to_II relevant_JJ prior_JJ art_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_MD patent_NN1 policy_NN1 enhancement_NN1 program_NN1 ,_, the_AT Peer_NN1 Review_NN1 Pilot_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 collaborative_JJ project_NN1 with_IW New_NP1 York_NP1 Law_NN1 School_NN1 's_GE Institute_NN1 for_IF Information_NN1 Law_NN1 and_CC Policy_NN1 ,_, Community_NN1 Patent_NN1 Review_NN1 Project_NN1 ,_, and_CC involves_VVZ experts_NN2 in_II the_AT public_JJ arena_NN1 who_PNQS actively_RR participate_VV0 in_II the_AT patent_NN1 examination_NN1 process_NN1 by_II offering_VVG additional_JJ relevant_JJ information_NN1 about_II prior_JJ art_NN1 as_RG well_RR as_CSA to_TO assist_VVI with_IW patentability_NN1 determination_NN1 pertaining_II21 to_II22 inventions_NN2 under_II patent_NN1 examination_NN1 ._. 
Launched_VVN in_II June_NPM1 2007_MC ,_, the_AT pilot_NN1 program_NN1 (_( initially_RR limited_VVN to_II computer_NN1 software_NN1 patent_NN1 applications_NN2 )_) allows_VVZ anyone_PN1 to_TO see_VVI a_AT1 voluntarily_RR published_VVN patent_NN1 application_NN1 and_CC submit_VV0 relevant_JJ prior_JJ art_NN1 through_II an_AT1 online_JJ software_NN1 system_NN1 ._. 
Both_DB2 of_IO these_DD2 programs_NN2 will_VM contribute_VVI to_II improving_VVG the_AT quality_NN1 of_IO patents_NN2 issued_VVD ,_, thus_RR indirectly_RR addressing_VVG issues_NN2 pertaining_II21 to_II22 criticisms_NN2 of_IO the_AT "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT legislation_NN1 presented_VVN in_II the_AT 110th_MD Congress_NN1 ,_, the_AT legislative_JJ branch_NN1 of_IO the_AT US_NP1 government_NN1 has_VHZ refrained_VVN from_II directly_RR becoming_VVG involved_JJ in_II this_DD1 controversy_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 appears_VVZ that_CST the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT KSR_NP1 International_JJ Co._NN1 v._II Teleflex_NP1 Inc._JJ ,_, 2007_MC decision_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT final_JJ arbiter_NN1 on_II addressing_VVG the_AT TSM_NP1 test_NN1 --_NN1 but_CCB not_XX directly_RR on_II the_AT "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 ._. 
Interestingly_RR enough_RR ,_, the_AT executive_NN1 branch_NN1 of_IO the_AT US_NP1 government_NN1 submitted_VVD an_AT1 amicus_NN1 curiae_NN2 brief_VV0 with_IW the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 supporting_VVG KSR_NP1 International_JJ ,_, suggesting_VVG that_CST the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 TSM_NP1 test_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT wrong_JJ direction_NN1 to_TO follow_VVI ,_, and_CC that_CST the_AT Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 Justices_NN2 focus_VV0 instead_RR on_II whether_CSW the_AT new_JJ combination_NN1 of_IO technological_JJ elements_NN2 display_VV0 an_AT1 "_" extraordinary_JJ level_NN1 of_IO innovation_NN1 "_" ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, the_AT problems_NN2 associated_VVN with_IW the_AT diluted_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 has_VHZ ,_, as_CSA discussed_VVN earlier_RRR in_II the_AT article_NN1 ,_, resulted_VVN in_II a_AT1 proliferation_NN1 of_IO patents_NN2 with_IW excessively_RR broad_JJ coverage_NN1 ,_, raising_VVG transaction_NN1 costs_NN2 and_CC uncertainties_NN2 about_II the_AT underlying_JJ boundaries_NN2 of_IO intellectual_JJ property_NN1 protection_NN1 within_II particular_JJ patents_NN2 ._. 
Various_JJ T_ZZ1 &I;_NULL industry_NN1 associations_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 the_AT Washington_NP1 ,_, D.C.-based_JJ Computer_NN1 &;_NULL Communication_NN1 Industry_NN1 Association_NN1 (_( whose_DDQGE membership_NN1 includes_VVZ Google_NP1 ,_, Microsoft_NP1 and_CC AT_II &T);_NULL and_CC the_AT Open_JJ Source_NN1 and_CC Industry_NN1 Alliance_NN1 ,_, along_II21 with_II22 major_JJ industry_NN1 players_NN2 ,_, including_VVG ,_, Cisco_NP1 Systems_NN2 ,_, Intel_NP1 ,_, Micron_NP1 Technology_NN1 and_CC Microsoft_NP1 ,_, were_VBDR strong_JJ supporters_NN2 of_IO KSR_NP1 International_JJ 's_GE petition_NN1 of_IO certiorari_NN2 before_II the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 and_CC submitted_VVD amicus_NN1 curiae_NN2 briefs_NN2 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Will_NP1 Rodgers_NP1 ,_, Director_NN1 of_IO Public_JJ Policy_NN1 for_IF the_AT Computer_NN1 &;_NULL Communications_NN2 Industry_NN1 Association_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 rules_NN2 affirmatively_RR in_II31 favor_II32 of_II33 KSR_NP1 International_JJ ,_, "_" you_PPY will_VM have_VHI more_DAR real_JJ investment_NN1 in_II our_APPGE research_NN1 and_CC development_NN1 ,_, you_PPY will_VM have_VHI more_DAR confident_JJ innovators_NN2 ,_, and_CC you_PPY wo_VM n't_XX have_VHI companies_NN2 worrying_VVG about_II potentially_RR infringing_VVG a_AT1 patent_NN1 they_PPHS2 know_VV0 is_VBZ bogus_JJ in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ._. "_" 
By_II its_APPGE ruling_NN1 in_II KSR_NP1 International_JJ Co._NN1 ,_, the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 followed_VVD its_APPGE long_JJ history_NN1 of_IO following_VVG precedence_NN1 ,_, re-affirming_VVG its_58 '_GE general_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO "_" non-obviousness_NN1 "_" and_CC repudiating_VVG the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 's_GE rigid_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT TSM_NP1 test_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 ruling_NN1 also_RR introduces_VVZ some_DD uncertainty_NN1 into_II an_AT1 area_NN1 of_IO patent_NN1 law_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD been_VBN settled_VVN ,_, and_CC begs_VVZ the_AT following_JJ question_NN1 :_: What_DDQ workable_JJ test_NN1 did_VDD the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 provide_VV0 for_IF the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 for_IF judging_VVG "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" and_CC which_DDQ avoids_VVZ the_AT so-called_JJ "_" hindsight_NN1 bias_NN1 "_" problem_NN1 related_VVN to_II the_AT evaluation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 invention_NN1 ?_? 
With_IW a_AT1 general_JJ "_" case-by-case_JJ "_" approach_NN1 offered_VVD as_RG substitute_JJ for_IF the_AT TSM_NP1 test_NN1 ,_, the_AT Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 Justices_NN2 left_VVD this_DD1 challenging_JJ question_NN1 still_RR unanswered_JJ ._. 
"_" One_MC1 person_NN1 's_GE obviousness_NN1 is_VBZ another_DD1 person_NN1 's_GE non-obviousness_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT same_DA set_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 and_CC law_NN1 ,_, "_" opined_VVD Kevin_NP1 Casey_NP1 ,_, of_IO Malvern_NP1 ,_, Pennsylvania_NP1 law_NN1 firm_NN1 Stradley_NP1 Ronson_NP1 Stevens_NP1 &;_NULL Young_NP1 ,_, and_CC president_NN1 of_IO the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 Bar_NN1 Association_NN1 ._. 
While_CS many_DA2 critics_NN2 have_VH0 supported_VVN a_AT1 re-affirmation_NN1 of_IO the_AT "_" Graham_NP1 factors_NN2 "_" for_IF judging_VVG "_" non-obviousness_NN1 "_" ,_, the_AT problem_NN1 with_IW Graham_NP1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 calls_VVZ for_IF an_AT1 open-ended_JJ inquiry_NN1 ._. 
Samuelson_NN1 below_RL suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT International_JJ Business_NN1 Machine_VV0 Corporation_NN1 (_( which_DDQ possesses_VVZ an_AT1 enormous_JJ patent_NN1 portfolio_NN1 )_) in_II its_APPGE amicus_NN1 curiae_NN2 brief_VV0 ,_, supporting_VVG neither_DD1 party_NN1 in_II the_AT appeal_NN1 ,_, may_VM yet_RR offer_VVI a_AT1 reasonable_JJ solution_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM presume_VVI in_II combination_NN1 patent_NN1 cases_NN2 that_CST the_AT prior_JJ art_NN1 teaches_VVZ ,_, suggests_VVZ ,_, or_CC motivates_VVZ the_AT claimed_JJ combination_NN1 ,_, either_RR implicitly_RR or_CC explicitly_RR ._. 
If_CS the_AT patent_NN1 claimant_NN1 believes_VVZ the_AT combination_NN1 to_TO be_VBI 'non-obvious_58 '_GE ,_, it_PPH1 must_VM prove_VVI so_RR ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 rule_NN1 may_VM deter_VVI applications_NN2 for_IF minor_JJ innovations_NN2 and_CC may_VM ,_, if_CS applied_VVN to_II existing_JJ patents_NN2 ,_, make_VV0 it_PPH1 easier_JJR to_TO challenge_VVI 'bad'_JJ patents_NN2 in_II litigation_NN1 and_CC to_TO resolve_VVI disputes_NN2 without_IW going_VVG to_II trial_NN1 ._. 
The_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 ruling_NN1 in_II KSR_NP1 International_JJ Co._NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, could_VM potentially_RR have_VHI far-ranging_JJ consequences_NN2 beyond_II the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO the_AT particular_JJ case_NN1 ,_, especially_RR for_IF the_AT hardware_NN1 and_CC software_NN1 manufacturers_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR the_AT foundation_NN1 of_IO the_AT T_ZZ1 &I;_NULL industries_NN2 ._. 
Several_DA2 major_JJ hardware_NN1 and_CC software_NN1 manufacturers_NN2 in_II the_AT telecommunication_NN1 and_CC information_NN1 technology_NN1 sector_NN1 ,_, including_II Intel_NP1 and_CC Cisco_NP1 Systems_NN2 ,_, filed_VVD amicus_NN1 briefs_NN2 urging_VVG the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 to_TO revise_VVI the_AT Federal_JJ Circuit_NN1 's_GE opinion_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ they_PPHS2 claim_VV0 creates_VVZ a_AT1 patent_NN1 granting_NN1 environment_NN1 encouraging_VVG seemingly_RR "_" obvious_JJ "_" combinations_NN2 of_IO pre-existing_JJ inventions_NN2 ._. 
The_AT alleged_JJ lax_JJ patent_NN1 environment_NN1 has_VHZ fueled_VVN the_AT rise_NN1 of_IO patent_NN1 speculators_NN2 (_( pejoratively_RR known_VVN as_II "_" patent_JJ trolls_NN2 "_" )_) whose_DDQGE sole_JJ business_NN1 model_NN1 is_VBZ predicting_VVG incremental_JJ changes_NN2 to_II existing_JJ high-technology_JJ inventions_NN2 ,_, obtaining_VVG patent_NN1 rights_NN2 on_II what_DDQ many_DA2 view_NN1 as_CSA "_" obvious_JJ "_" extensions_NN2 of_IO established_JJ technologies_NN2 ,_, and_CC then_RT suing_VVG companies_NN2 for_IF patent_NN1 infringement_NN1 ._. 
With_IW the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 's_GE decision_NN1 in_II KSR_NP1 International_JJ ,_, these_DD2 so-called_JJ "_" patent_NN1 trolls_NN2 "_" will_VM find_VVI far_RR fewer_DAR patent_NN1 opportunities_NN2 ,_, and_CC patents_NN2 granted_VVN for_IF "_" business_NN1 methods_NN2 "_" ,_, often_RR abstract_JJ processes_NN2 ,_, may_VM also_RR be_VBI invalidated_VVN ._. 
Furthermore_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ that_CST the_AT validity_NN1 of_IO several_DA2 issued_JJ patents_NN2 could_VM be_VBI legally_RR challenged_VVN for_IF lack_NN1 of_IO inventiveness_NN1 in_II future_JJ patent_NN1 infringement_NN1 cases_NN2 ._. 
For_IF many_DA2 T_ZZ1 &I;_NULL companies_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 Texas_NP1 Instruments_NN2 and_CC AT_II &T,;_NULL who_PNQS have_VH0 used_VVN their_APPGE patent_NN1 portfolios_NN2 to_TO aggressively_RR litigate_VVI for_IF infringement_NN1 payouts_NN2 ,_, or_CC Cisco_NP1 Systems_NN2 ,_, Inc._JJ ,_, which_DDQ has_VHZ amassed_VVN patents_NN2 by_II the_AT thousands_NNO2 to_TO use_VVI as_RG defensive_JJ "_" bargaining_NN1 chips_NN2 "_" in_II patent_NN1 litigation_NN1 cases_NN2 ,_, the_AT KSR_NP1 International_JJ ,_, Inc_JJ ._. 
Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 decision_NN1 will_VM put_VVI a_AT1 major_JJ crimp_NN1 in_II "_" litigation_NN1 gamesmanship_NN1 "_" ._. 
Yet_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ obvious_JJ by_II the_AT lack_NN1 of_IO inclusion_NN1 of_IO any_DD public_JJ policy_NN1 remedy_NN1 (_( to_II the_AT above-mentioned_JJ criticisms_NN2 of_IO the_AT present_JJ "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 )_) located_VVD in_II the_AT bills_NN2 presented_VVN in_II the_AT 110th_MD Congress_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT biotechnology_NN1 ,_, pharmaceutical_JJ ,_, and_CC specialty_NN1 chemicals_NN2 industries_NN2 ,_, along_II21 with_II22 the_AT patent_NN1 bar_NN1 ,_, have_VH0 successfully_RR lobbied_VVN against_II any_DD Congressional_JJ solution_NN1 to_II this_DD1 important_JJ patent_NN1 issue_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT indication_NN1 that_CST such_DA opposition_NN1 will_VM decline_VVI in_II the_AT 110th_MD Congress_NN1 ._. 
Samuelson_NN1 believes_VVZ that_CST ,_, given_VVN the_AT above_JJ mentioned_VVD opposition_NN1 to_II changes_NN2 to_II the_AT "_" non-obviousness_JJ "_" criterion_NN1 in_II the_AT US_NP1 Congress_NN1 ,_, the_AT US_NP1 Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT only_JJ practical_JJ venue_NN1 to_TO acquire_VVI any_DD relief_NN1 for_IF the_AT T_ZZ1 &I;_NULL industries_NN2 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 practical_JJ first_MD step_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 observation_NN1 is_VBZ accurate_JJ --_NN1 but_CCB the_AT development_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 national_JJ patent_NN1 policy_NN1 ,_, including_II establishing_VVG the_AT appropriate_JJ analytic_JJ criteria_NN2 for_IF the_AT technical_JJ analysis_NN1 necessary_JJ for_IF awarding_VVG patents_NN2 that_CST alleviate_VV0 the_AT problems_NN2 identified_VVN by_II many_DA2 in_II the_AT T_ZZ1 &I;_NULL industries_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT proper_JJ Constitutional_JJ venue_NN1 of_IO the_AT legislative_JJ branch_NN1 ._. 
