Keller's influence is evident, as it has been cited over 10,000 times by USPTO's PTAB, underscoring its pivotal role in shaping obviousness determinations.
The gap created by Keller in determining what constitutes sufficient evidence for obviousness introduces ambiguity, similar to what was noted in KSR v. Teleflex.
Keller's case involved a digital cardiac pacer, which emerged during a time when analog options dominated the market, complicating obviousness judgments.
The rejection of Keller’s digital pacer patent illustrates how the USPTO favors prior art, making it challenging for innovative modifications to succeed.
[
Collection
]
[
|
...
]