Golden Gate University Law Review


After reviewing the facts of the Dillon case, this paper will illustrate, by analysis of prior caselaw, that Dillon has not revived the Hass-Henze doctrine of structural obviousness. Rather, Dillon will be revealed as having molded many years of sometimes inconsistent precedent into a coherent standard for prima facie obviousness. Subsequently, the legitimacy of the Dillon standard with respect to chemical compound, composition and process claims will be considered. Finally, the effect of Dillon on patent prosecution costs, and other policy considerations, will be discussed.