Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO / Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office , and it is considered to be broader in general.
Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.
To be patentable, a technology must not only be "new" but also "non-obvious." The US requirement for non-obviousness corresponds to the inventive step requirement in other countries. An "invention" is obvious (and therefore ineligible for a patent) if a person of "ordinary skill" in the relevant field of technology would have thought the ...
An invention must meet several requirements to be eligible for a patent. The invention must concern patentable subject matter. [5] The invention must be novel and the application for a patent on the invention must be timely. [6] The invention must be non-obvious. [7] Finally, the invention must be sufficiently documented. [8]
The current legal analysis, as expressed in the definitive decision on printed matter, In re Gulack, [4] is as follows: The differences between a newly claimed substrate bearing printed matter and a prior art substrate, where the only point of departure from the prior art is in the printed matter itself, are not entitled to patentable weight ...
In US patent law, non-obviousness is one of the requirements that an invention must meet to qualify for patentability, codified as a part of Patent Act of 1952 as 35 U.S.C. §103. An invention is not obvious if a " person having ordinary skill in the art " (PHOSITA) would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by ...
"Wherein" clauses limit the scope of the claim. [21] Other forms of purpose language are "whereby" and "thereby" clauses, similar to the "wherein" clauses just described, [22] and statements of intended use in a claim preamble (depending on facts of case, preamble may or may not limit claim scope; in this case it was the "essence of the ...
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The two particularly contentious areas, with numerous reversals of prior legislative and judicial decisions, have been computer-based and biological inventions. [9] [10] The US practice of patentable subject matter is very different from that of the European Patent Office.