In re Winslow, 365 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1966)
In the 1966 decision Judge Rich described the scope of prior art for §103 using the tableau framework:
We think the proper way to apply the 103 obviousness test to a case like this is to first picture the inventor as working in his shop with the prior art references — which he is presumed to know — hanging on the walls around him.
I wonder if today, the proper legal analysis would begin with a Google’s search engine that has indexed the prior art references?
Also, did the AIA eliminate the “pertinent art” requirement?