美国专利法的创造性如下规定：
35 U.S.C.103(a)：A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are 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 art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
如前所述，35 U.S.C. 103 (a) 对创造性进行了描述，但是条文并未给出非显而易见性的详细定义，所以仍然需要进一步通过司法实践来明确其要求。因此，美国最高法院于1966年通过Graham案中，确定了葛兰氏四要素。非显而易见性的判断是一个基于基本事实的法律问题，(1)确定现有技术的范围和内容，(2)确定申请发明与现有技术之间的区别，(3)决定相应领域的普通技术水平，(4)评估作为证据的辅助性考虑因素，包括商业上成功、长期渴望解决的需求、他人的失败等。这些因素统称为葛兰氏四要素。之后，联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)在Dennison案中针对组合发明对最高法院确定的判断框架中作了进一步改革，提出了教导-启示-动机（teaching-suggestion-motivation test）的判断方法，即TSM标准。
为确定一项发明是显而易见的普通技术，必须要有明确的合理的推理基础，以支持显而易见的法律结论。所述推理基础也是确定一项发明是否具有非显而易见性的判断标准。所申请的发明与现有技术相比，
美国专利法的创造性如下规定：
35 U.S.C.103(a)：A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are 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 art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
如前所述，35 U.S.C. 103 (a) 对创造性进行了描述，但是条文并未给出非显而易见性的详细定义，所以仍然需要进一步通过司法实践来明确其要求。因此，美国最高法院于1966年通过Graham案中，确定了葛兰氏四要素。非显而易见性的判断是一个基于基本事实的法律问题，(1)确定现有技术的范围和内容，(2)确定申请发明与现有技术之间的区别，(3)决定相应领域的普通技术水平，(4)评估作为证据的辅助性考虑因素，包括商业上成功、长期渴望解决的需求、他人的失败等。这些因素统称为葛兰氏四要素。之后，联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)在Dennison案中针对组合发明对最高法院确定的判断框架中作了进一步改革，提出了教导-启示-动机（teaching-suggestion-motivation test）的判断方法，即TSM标准。
为确定一项发明是显而易见的普通技术，必须要有明确的合理的推理基础，以支持显而易见的法律结论。所述推理基础也是确定一项发明是否具有非显而易见性的判断标准。所申请的发明与现有技术相比，