Just When TSM Was Getting Noticed Daily.

It could be just one of those holiday-season ‘things’ but still a notable thing, that the Federal Circuit has gone completely silent on obviousness issues, ever since the oral arguments to the Supreme Court in the KSR v. Teleflex case.  The recency and frequency of CAFC rulings on obviousness, before and after, has not been scientifically quantified.  The one certain sum is that the TSM aspect of obviousness has gotten zero in-depth mention of late.
The 28-page affirmance of a preliminary injunction in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 06-1613 (Dec. 8, 2006) avoids any extended treatment of the issue.  In one line, the panel cites as a ground for affirmance, the defendant’s failure to “articulate the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the references and to combine them.” 
Similarly, the only mention in 31 pages in
DSU Medical v. JMS Co. Ltd., 04-1620 (Dec. 13, 2006) was that the “record also showed evidence of adequate motivation to combine these references to reach a decision of obviousness.”
That is a notable departure from the rate at which the issue was discussed by the CAFC in the months between the grant of certiorari and the oral argument in KSR v. Teleflex.  Does silence about gobblydegook mean that it is not being heard?