In car engines without computer-controlled throttles, the accelerator pedal interacts with the throttle via a cable or other mechanical link. The traditional mechanical design of an accelerator pedal permitted the pedal to be pushed down or released, but the position in the footwell area of the car could not be adjusted by sliding the pedal forward or back. As a result, a driver who wished to be closer to or farther from the pedal had to reposition himself in the driver’s seat or move the seat in some way. These were imperfect solutions for drivers of smaller stature who had cars with deep footwells. Inventors therefore designed pedals that could be adjusted to change their location in the footwell. Patents were issued for some of these inventions, which relied on a mechanical link. Steven Engelgau later invented an adjustable pedal with an electronic sensor mounted on a fixed pivot point. He received a patent on his invention. Engelgau’s invention was the first adjustable pedal to employ an electronic sensor on a fixed pivot point. Of course, electronic sensors and computerized systems are used in various ways elsewhere in vehicles. Engelgau granted Teleflex Inc., an exclusive license to exercise his rights under the patent. Later, when Teleflex sued another party for alleged infringement of the patent, the defendant argued that the patent was invalid and therefore should not have been issued because Engelgau’s invention was obvious. Was the defendant correct in this argument? Was Engelgau’s invention obvious even though no other inventor in the field had utilized an electronic sensor mounted on a fixed pivot point?