Hindsight issues in obviousness in KSR v. Teleflex

Different people may see different things in KSR v. Teleflex.

Chris Rogers of the Wisconsin Technology Network wrote:

The organizations weighing in on what should be done with obviousness law also are quite interesting. The Business Software Alliance, AARP, and others hostile toward the current patent system advocate changes that would render virtually every invention obvious and unpatentable unless the inventor can show some level of synergy realized by the invention. Synergy occurs where the invention is surprisingly better than one would have expected.

Curiously, Rogers did not connect issues in KSR v. Teleflex with assertions made by PubPat and FTCR concerning the obviousness of the Thomson patents in the area of embryonic stem cells. If work with embryonic cells of mice rendered work on human stem cells, why did it take so long for human embryonic stem cells?

Rogers did write:

For example, many patent examiners reject patent applications by citing two or more earlier patents that, in the aggregate, teach every element of your invention. Similarly, during litigation, accused infringers attempt to invalidate patents by assembling new prior art to show that the invention was obvious. Hindsight occurs where explicit information in the earlier patents, along with implicit knowledge in the relevant scientific field, fails to sufficiently "teach, suggest, or motivate" a hypothetical person of ordinary scientific skill to invent your invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

See also Gregory Mandel's points about hindsight.