550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,568 times 187 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,159 times 489 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."