Obviousness – Flow Chart
This is my second post on the nonobviousness standard for patents (35 USC 103). The earlier post focused on the practical questions that an inventor and his attorney face when negotiating with the Patent Office (PTO). This post attempts to provide a rational approach to the nonobviousness requirement.
Once it has been determined that a patent claim is novel, step 10 in the flow chart, there are only two things that can make the invention nonobvious. One is a new result and the other is a new combination that has provides same result in the prior art. At step 12, we determine if the invention has a new result. For instance, Edison’s light bulb had a new result of a high resistance filament. This result is important because it makes it possible to build an economically Read more »
-
Recent
- USPTO Announce First Satellite Office
- Net Neutrality: Requiem for the Internet
- The Value of Charity
- Federal Budget Deficit: Omnibus Spending Bill Killed
- Long Term Economic Predictions
- Making Patents Incontestable
- Regulatory Bill of Rights
- Walker Digital v. Facebook
- Ayn Rand & Economics
- Nobel Prize Not Enough for Patent Critics
- Failing of Free Market Theory
- Sustainability Isn’t Sustainable
-
Links
-
Archives
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (7)
- September 2010 (11)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (7)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (10)
- April 2010 (9)
- March 2010 (13)
- February 2010 (16)
- January 2010 (17)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS