When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Inventive step and non-obviousness - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non...

    The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. [1] In other words, " [the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above ...

  3. Non-obviousness in United States patent law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-obviousness_in_United...

    Non-obviousness in United States patent law. 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 ...

  4. United States patent law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law

    v. t. e. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time (usually, 20 years) from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the ...

  5. Systematic inventive thinking - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_inventive_thinking

    Systematic inventive thinking. Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT) is a thinking method developed in Israel in the mid-1990s. Derived from Genrich Altshuller 's TRIZ engineering discipline, SIT is a practical approach to creativity, innovation and problem solving, which has become a well known methodology for innovation.

  6. Graham v. John Deere Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

    Clark further held that the differences between Scoggin's design and the prior art were simply too minor and non-technical to maintain the validity of Cook's patent. A companion case, United States v. Adams, was argued the same day and—in contrast to the holding in Graham v. Deere—held that non-obviousness was satisfied.

  7. Synectics - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synectics

    Synectics is a problem solving methodology that stimulates thought processes of which the subject may be unaware. This method was developed by George M. Prince (1918–2009) [1] and William J.J. Gordon, originating in the Arthur D. Little Invention Design Unit in the 1950s. According to Gordon, Synectics research has three main assumptions: [2]

  8. Patentable subject matter - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter

    Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter of an invention that is considered appropriate for patent protection in a given jurisdiction. The laws and practices of many countries stipulate that certain types of inventions should be denied patent protection. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or ...

  9. Section 28.3 has a grace period of one year that allows the inventor, or a person who obtained knowledge directly or indirectly from the inventor, to disclose the invention without rendering the subsequent invention non-obvious. The non-obvious requirement is explained in Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy. Justice Hugessen contrasted the concepts ...