Try this link:

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/...

Just how obvious does an innovation have to be before it can be denied a patent?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:of... />

That’s at the heart of a dispute headed for oral arguments before the Supreme Court Nov. 28, and the case involving adjustable gas pedals that has drawn the close attention of technology giants Microsoft and Cisco.

A patent holder has sued a company called KSR International for infringement, but the court appears poised to rule that the sensor technology used in the pedals was too obvious at the time of its invention to be protected by a patent.

It’s the first time in 30 years that the Supreme Court has heard a case involving the so-called Doctrine of Non-Obviousness in patent law, and experts like Professor Jay Thomas of Georgetown University Law Center expect the court to issue a ruling that will make it more difficult to win patents in the future.

It might sound like a bad thing for technology if patents become harder to get, but Thomas and others — including Microsoft and Cisco, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Teleflex’s patent should never have been granted — say the opposite is true.

Thomas points out that laptop computers are developed with the use of technology covered by as many as 40,000 to 50,000 patents, proof enough, he argues, that the patent system in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:sm... />U.S. has run amok.

Many argue that such developments are the handiwork of patent trolls, a phenomenon already in the crosshairs of tech giants who say their innovations are slowed by having to defend thousands of minor infringement suits.

The gas-pedal case comes at a time when others, including the leading patent-holder in the U.S., IBM, have called for sweeping reforms of the U.S. patent system.

Others, including Ephraim Schwartz in InfoWorld, say Microsoft and company are hoping to make it harder for upstart inventors to challenge their stranglehold on the tech world.

But as a recent IBM suit against Amazon shows, patent disputes are not always a David-and-Goliath story.

The justices will have to decide whether to lower the bar for patent examiners to reject applications on the grounds of obviousness. We think Thomas and others pushing the KSR position make a good argument for making it easier to reject patents.

Of course, as he points out, deciding to find a new standard for obviousness that will be just as fair to inventors and subsequent innovators won’t be easy. With 5,000 patent examiners making

Of course, as he points out, deciding to find a new standard for obviousness that will be just as fair to inventors and subsequent innovators won’t be easy. With 5,000 patent examiners making individual judgment calls, an objective standard to replace the current one won’t be found easily.