Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Under the rule, a single reference (for anticipation) or the combination of references relied upon, plus the ordinary knowledge of persons skilled in the art (for obviousness), must provide each claimed element. For anticipation, and under certain circumstances for obviousness, the doctrine of inherency may be relied on to meet this test.
The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...
Teleflex described how obviousness should be determined: In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103.
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 ...
The purpose of the inventive step, or non-obviousness, requirement is to avoid granting patents for inventions which only follow from "normal product design and development", to achieve a proper balance between the incentive provided by the patent system, namely encouraging innovation, and its social cost, namely conferring temporary monopolies. [4]
Prior art (also known as state of the art [1] or background art [2]) is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability.
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 technology was obvious, on the filing date of the patent application. Legislatively the requirement for non-obviousness was established in the Patent Act of 1952. Specifically, 35 U.S.C ...
The non-obviousness criterion can be easily met, if a claim is based on a discovery of new natural phenomenon/principle/law. In the patentable subject matter analysis, however, this "discovery" is assumed to be prior art, and an "additional inventive concept" must be present in the claim.