Original sentence: " Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit was quoted saying that by his interpretation, the TSM test remains part of the calculation of obviousness, "but it gives us forceful instruction on the manner in which the test is to be applied." The opinion does denounce procedures that bar the use of "common sense" in multiple instances, including where "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.A great deal of debate has sprung up in the wake of the decision, particularly over the implications on the TSM test and concepts including "obvious to try", "person having ordinary skill in the art" and summary judgment.The opinion stated that the application of the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter "must not be confied within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose.While not explicitly denouncing the TSM test, there is some harsh language in regards to it and the Federal Circuit's application of the test
Edited sentence: While not explicitly denouncing the TSM test, the opinion stated that the application of the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter "must not be confied within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose