What makes an invention patentable? Among other things, it must have a functional benefit to the public. Examples include spinning machines, which improve technology in a practical way. An invention must meet these three requirements in order to qualify for patent protection. However, patenting an idea is more complex than it first appears. In this article, we’ll examine the basics of patentability and discuss the steps necessary to protect an idea.
Contents
- Inventiveness
- Industrial applicability
- Relevance
- Non-obviousness
Inventiveness
Inventiveness makes an invention patentable. Inventiveness is the ability to solve a problem in a way that no one else has been able to do before. The solution must be novel, not obvious to a person skilled in the art. An example of an invention is a new method for making a swing. Although this solution isn’t particularly novel, it is more effective and accurate than existing solutions.
Inventiveness requires that the claimed method is better than a competing product. There must be technical prejudice involved in the technology and the method of use. The invention must also be capable of overcoming the technical disadvantages of other products or processes. Inventiveness is a combination of the requisite training and the inventiveness of the new method. It cannot be the product of a single person’s creativity.
The non-obviousness requirement is a subjective test. If an invention is obvious to an ordinary person, it won’t be granted a patent. In order to qualify for a patent, an invention must be new and have not been disclosed before. Typically, this means that it cannot be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. It also means that the invention must have a legitimately new result.
To be patented, an invention must be useful to consumers. It must also be controllable and reproducible. Patents are only issued to those whose creations can be reproduced and sold. Inventiveness is not enough to make an invention useful. It must have some benefit to the public. A scintilla of utility is sufficient, as long as it is related to the subject matter of the invention.
Inventions can be co-invented by several people. Co-inventions can be sole or joint inventions, and the inventors must have a legal interest in each of the claims. In addition to being sole and joint, co-inventors can be grouped together as well. But all of the individuals must have an inventive contribution to at least one claim. The invention should be useful in the field of the inventor.
Industrial applicability
An invention is patentable if it can be used in an industrial setting. This is known as industrial applicability. Patent laws require that the invention’s novelty and inventive step be applied to at least one industry, preferably several. If it does not meet the above requirements, it will be invalidated. The patent application process is lengthy, and a long-term effort may not be worth the result. In other words, if the invention is not used in industry, there is little chance of it being patented.
Relevance
The field of endeavor section of your specification outlines the subject matter of your invention. In the past, this section has been titled “FIELD OF INVENTION”. However, this section now includes specific documents and references to specific problems and missing gaps in prior art. Identifying these aspects is crucial to determining whether your invention qualifies for patenting. Here are some tips to help you prepare a relevant field of endeavor statement.
Non-obviousness
A patent examiner’s decision on the obviousness of an invention is not always predictable. It’s possible for him to reject an invention based on a combination of references that show a more practical approach. This can be powerful evidence that the invention is not obvious. For instance, the patent in question involves the use of a new ingredient in dentures. The patent examiner’s decision on the obviousness of a new ingredient can sway the outcome of an infringement action.
In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court redefined the standard for determining whether an invention is obvious. Under this standard, an invention may not be patentable if it is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A layperson can learn about the invention but still not know what it does. In the case of a patent, this standard is much more stringent than it was before.
In an obviousness analysis, there are two important factors to consider: time of invention and the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the field. The courts have also referenced the reasonable expectation of success, or how the invention should have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. DNA cases highlight the shifting assessments of non-obviousness over time. A recent case involving coding DNA sequences illustrates how the standard is changing. The Kubin case, for instance, shows how DNA cases have changed. During this time, cloning techniques became more advanced, and the outcome was not obvious to an ordinary person.
In addition to proving that an invention is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field, an invention must also be practical and useful. The purpose of a patent application is to protect the idea by ensuring that it is not a duplication of something already known. It is not a substitute for legal advice or professional guidance. It is a guideline for evaluating the value of patent protection.
