Supreme Court of the United States, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
Graham v. John Deere Co.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, were the differences between the claimed plow shank assembly and the prior art such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art?
Section 103 codifies the Hotchkiss nonobviousness requirement and does not change the general level of patentable invention. The ultimate question of obviousness is one of law based on several basic factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Secondary considerations—such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and the failure of others—may be relevant as indicia of nonobviousness. The analysis must consider the subject matter as a whole at the time of invention and avoid hindsight bias.
The asserted claims of Graham's later patent were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals.
Graham provides the definitive, enduring framework for obviousness—the Graham factors—that every court and practitioner must apply in § 103 analyses. It reinforces that obviousness is a legal conclusion grounded in factual determinations, and that secondary considerations can be powerful but do not salvage claims when the primary evidence shows predictability and routine skill. The case is foundational for understanding later obviousness jurisprudence, including KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and it exemplifies disciplined, claim-focused reasoning that is central to patent litigation and prosecution.