The way I read it, they're not deleting any tests, but rather just providing additional case law guidance on three of them. The reason the other four aren't inc

The way I read it, they're not deleting any tests, but rather just providing additional case law guidance on three of them. The reason the other four aren't included is simply that there is no case law to be discussed for them, presumably. The notice includes this paragraph: Although the other rationales discussed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are not the focus of separate discussions in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update, it will be noted that obviousness concepts such as applying known techniques, design choice, and market forces [the items not discussed] are addressed when they arise in the selected cases. The cases included in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update reinforce the idea, presented in the 2007 KSR Guidelines, that there may be more than one line of reasoning that can properly be applied to a particular factual scenario. The selected decisions also illustrate the overlapping nature of the lines of reasoning that may be employed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although the 2007 KSR Guidelines presented the rationales as discrete, self-contained lines of reasoning, and they may indeed be employed that way, it is useful to recognize that real-world situations may require analyses that may not be so readily pigeon-holed into distinct categories. Additionally, keep in mind that the USPTO can't change the test of obviousness. That is the role of Congress (and, some might argue, the federal courts). The USPTO is just giving advice to its patent examiners of its best interpretations of the existing decisions.