State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Non-Obviousness: A Case Study in Judicial Activism

The genesis of the non-obviousness standard (Inventive Step in Europe) was the Supreme Court’s decision in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851).  This case first articulated the idea that the improvement that was the subject of a patent had to be more than “the work of the skilful mechanic.”  The case involved making door and other knobs of all kinds of clay used in pottery, and of porcelain.[1]The invention according to the patent holder was:

This improvement consists in making said knobs of potter’s clay, such as is used in any species of pottery; also of porcelain; the operation is the same as in pottery, by moulding, turning, and burning and glazing; they may be plain in surface and color, or ornamented to any degree in both; the modes of fitting them for their application to doors, locks, furniture, and other uses, will be as various as the uses to which they may be applied, but chiefly predicated on one principle, that of having the cavity in which the screw or shank is inserted, by which they are fastened, largest at the bottom of its depth, in form of a dovetail, and a screw formed therein by pouring in metal in a fused state.[2]

The Supreme Court upon reviewing the case made the common error of pointing out that each of the elements in the invention were known.

But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.[3]

All inventions are combinations of known elements since conservation of matter and energy means that you cannot create something from nothing, for more information see KSR: Supreme Ignorance by Supreme Court.  As a result, this analysis by the Supreme Court is meaningless and sheds no light on whether the invention should have obtained a patent.

Based on this analysis the Supreme Court then reasons:

for unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor.[4] (underlining added)

This ruling states the well known idea that for an invention to be patentable, it must be more than just the work of a skillful mechanic.  Today this is stated as the invention must have taken more than just the work of “one skilled in the art.”

There are a number of problems in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. First, where did the Supreme Court get the authority to add an additional requirement above novelty in order for an invention to obtain a patent?  The statute at the time did not contain any such additional requirement.  It was judicial activism to add a requirement not found in the statute.  Another error in the Supreme Court’s reasoning is the use of hindsight.  All inventions are obvious in hindsight and must be described in enough detail that they can be practiced by one skilled in the art (ordinary mechanic) to meet the requirement of the social contract of patents.[5] Another error in the case was the failure to recognize that copying by competitors of the invention or success of the invention tend to show that it was non-obvious.  Finally, the Supreme Court failed to understand the implications of the laws of physics as they apply to inventions, specifically that conservation of matter means all inventions are combinations of known elements.

Despite these errors, it is reasonable to ask did the Supreme Court’s judicial activism result in any lasting problems?  According to Gale R. Peterson, Cox Smith Matthews in their paper, “Obviousness / Non-Obviousness Of The Novel Invention: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood to KSR v. Teleflex 35 U.S.C. § 103 – 1851 to 2006.”[6]

The cases decided after Hotchkiss in 1851, both by the Supreme Court and the lower courts, were chaotic. There was no statute governing the additional hurdle an otherwise novel invention must cross before being deemed a patentable invention.[7]

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood resulted in an unworkable standard of patentability, because it was inherently subjective.  This increased the uncertainty whether an inventor would obtain a patent for their invention and increased the risk that their patent might be held invalid.  It also caused the standard of patentability to vary in different Circuits and the Patent Office.  Today this is widely understood to increase the cost of obtaining a patent and decrease the amount of resources invested in inventions.  The Supreme Court’s judicial activism in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood resulted in numerous problems that haunt us today.  Including the complete nonsense opined by the Supreme Court in the KSR v. Teleflex[8] decision, see KSR: Supreme Ignorance by Supreme Court.

Is there any logical reason for the additional requirement of non-obviousness for patents?  The definition of invention according to Free Dictionary online is “to produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.”[9] While Merriam Webster (online) defines invention as “a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment.”[10] I will ignore how and invention is created as a criteria and suggest the following definition, “to create something new” as a common sense definition.  This definition differentiates production or manufacturing from invention.  Production is creating something, but it is not creating something new it is creating something old.  If you argue that it is creating something new, then the word new has no meaning in the definition.  This definition does not do a good job of differentiating an invention from a new book or painting.  It might be argued that a new book is not creating something new, but it is not the same as other books.  So I believe this simple common sense definition has to be supplemented.  Specifically, I suggest that invention is “to create something new that has an objective result.”  By an objective result I mean that goal of an invention is an objective result that can be tested as opposed to a subjective result that is the result of a song being played or a book being read or a painting be viewed.  An objective result distinguishes an invention from a new artistic creation.

So how does this common sense definition of invention, “to create something new that has an objective result,” match up with the requirements of patent law (101, 102, 103, 112)?  This definition is generally consistent with section 35 USC 101, statutory subject matter.  It excludes scientific and mathematical discoveries since these are not creations.  Notably it clearly does not exclude software patents.  A software enabled invention is clearly a new creation and it has an objective result.  The same is true of business methods patents (for more on the nonsense associated with business method patent see – Bilski, Software Patents and Business Method Patents.  This definition is clearly consistent with section 102 – new equals novel.  Is this definition consistent with section 35 USC 103?  No this definition is not consistent with section 103.  There is nothing in the definition that suggests a standard above novelty or new.  The general reason given for section 103 is that we do not want trivial inventions that just change the size or the weight or some other trivial feature of an existing invention to obtain a patent.  If a change in size or weight or color does not make a difference in the objective result, it is not new and it is not an invention.  So I believe the definition of invention I have offered covers this issue and therefore there is no reason for an addition standard above novelty.  My suggested definition is neither consistent nor inconsistent with section 35 USC 112, since this section does not define what is an invention.  Section 112 defines the requirements an inventor must meet to obtain a patent for their invention.  Section 112 deals with the social contract between the inventor and society.  Overall the common sense definition I suggested for invention fits nicely with patent law, but there is absolutely no logic for a nonobviousness criteria for patents based on this definition.  The creation of the nonobviousness standard was judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court without any statutory justification.  The standard has proven to be completely unworkable and completely subjective.  Only the CAFC’s jurisprudence before KSR provided any measure of a stability and logic to the section 103.  The nonobviousness standard has resulted in increase costs to inventors without any benefit.  It has increase the cost of ligation, helped technologies thieves to steal inventions, and decreased the amount invested in new technology.

I suggest the radical notion that logically the nonobviousness standard, 35 USC 103, should be repealed.  If it is not repealed then we should demand a statutory definition that is as objective as possible.  One objective solution would be to codify the CAFC’s teaching, suggestion, motivation (TSM) test.  I have proposed an alternative standard for 35 USC 103 that I believe is even more objective, clearer, and more consistent with reality than the TSM test – see Obviousness Flow Chart .  By adopting any of these solutions we will reduce the cost and uncertainty of obtaining a patent and litigating patents.  This will increase the value of issued patents and increase the investment in new technologies, which are the only way to increase real per capita income – see The Source of Economic Growth.

PS

As an interesting intellectual exercise I attempted to use ordinary definitions of novelty and obviousness to determine if the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Graham v. Deere[11] had any basis in logic and was in anyway consistent with the statutory language.  The non-obviousness standard was added to U.S. patent law in the 1952 Patent Act.  The Courts’ job is to interpret the statute.  The key portion of the non-obviousness statute states:

A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.  (underlining added)

While many lawyers will want to immediately jump to the legislative history to interpret the statute, this is only appropriate if the statute is not clear on it face.  Based on the wording and the fact that section 103 was added later than the novelty requirement, logically 103 is intended to be an additional requirement above the novelty requirement.  According to Dictionary.com, novelty means “of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea.”  The nonobviousness requirement logically requires something more than an invention be novel.  In order to understand what nonobvious means, lets find out what obvious means.  Then anything that does not meet the definition of obvious is nonobvious.  According to Dictionary.com obvious means, “easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident.”  It is axiomatic to patent law that whether an invention is nonobvious has to be determined at the time the invention was made, in other words before the invention was known.  How can an invention that has not been made be easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident (obvious)?  Clearly, an invention that has not been made cannot be open to view and how can you have knowledge of something that does not exist.  Evident means, according to Dictionary.com, plain or clear to the sight or understanding, which cannot be true of something that does not exist.  Unfortunately, this line of examination does not lead to any useful results.  No wonder the 1952 Statute has not lead to meaningful clarification of what is patentable!


[1] Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248, 249 (1851)

[2] Ibid 250-251

[3] Ibid 266

[4] Ibid 268

[5] 35 USC 112, first paragraph (Modern)

[6] Gale R. Peterson, Cox Smith Matthews, “Obviousness / Non-Obviousness Of The Novel Invention: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood to KSR v. Teleflex 35 U.S.C. § 103 – 1851 to 2006.” 11th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, October 26-27 2006.

[7] Ibid 3.

[8] KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

[9] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inventor (6/16/10).

[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/invention (6/16/10).

[11] Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 86 S.Ct. 684 (1966)

Advertisements

June 18, 2010 - Posted by | -Law, -Philosophy, Patents | , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Comments »

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Meza and Dale Halling, Dale Halling. Dale Halling said: case study in judicial activism its effect on high tech http://bit.ly/bAN3Dm […]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention Non-Obviousness: A Case Study in Judicial Activism « State of Innovation -- Topsy.com | June 18, 2010 | Reply

  2. Dale,

    As I pointed out in one of my old blogs:
    http://patentu.blogspot.com/2007/06/obvious-to-try-is-oxymoronic-and.html

    The word Ob-via-s is derived from the Latin for coming upon the single path (the via) and then taking the next apparent step forward.

    It gets a little dicier if there is a fork in the road (for which Will Rogers would advise that we should take it, if we happen come upon that fork).

    If one is indeed on a single path, then the next step forward is not a big brainer.

    Unfortunately in real life, all paths lead to multi-way forks, spoons, circular rationals, and dead ends. 😉

    Comment by step back | June 18, 2010 | Reply

  3. Stepback,

    Thanks for your excellent post

    Comment by dbhalling | June 18, 2010 | Reply

  4. Ever since James Watt fitted a separate condenser to the Newcomen atmospheric engine it has been known in patent law that you need a new result to support invention.

    Here is what George Ticknor Curtis said on the subject in 1848 (his book was cited with approval in Hotchkiss v Greenwood):

    “It is evident, therefore, that the whole of the act of invention, in the department of useful arts, embraces more than the new arrangement of particles of matter in new relations. The purpose of such new arrangements is to produce some new effect or result, by calling into activity some latent law, or force, or property, by means of which, in a new application, the new effect or result may be accomplished. In every form in which matter is used, in every production of the ingenuity of man, he relies on the laws of nature and the properties of matter, and seeks for new effects and results through their agency and aid.”

    New result is the basis of PSA in the EPO since the particular technical accomplishments of the inventor vis-a-vis the closest prior art are used to derive the so-called “objective problem.”

    So we need to look for new result, whether we are in the mechanical/electrical arts or in the chemical/biotech arts. If we know that, it is not hard to find such results in almost any worthwhile invention.

    Unfortunately it is difficult to find good recent examples of mechanical/electrical patents being upheld in the CAFC, although there are many upheld chemical/pharma patents. It may be that this is a matter of self-selection with the better patents leading to settled disputes and not coming before the courts, or it may be the result of the very bland drafting style popular in some circles. Whatever the explanation, it would be advantageous to have more examples of good affirmed mechanical/electrical patents to serve as role models.

    Comment by Paul Cole | June 20, 2010 | Reply

  5. Paul,

    I disagree that you need a new result to support a patent. For instance, if an inventor figures out a way of producing the same result in a new way, why is this not patentable? For instance, why would a Fresnel lens not be patentable as an optical lens over a glass lens? It is a new combination of elements, but it does not produce a new result. Isn’t FM patentable over AM even though both have the result of transmitting audio signals over radio waves? Isn’t ibuprofen patentable over aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) even though they both have the result reducing inflammation and reducing pain?

    PSA – Problem Solution Approach

    Comment by dbhalling | June 20, 2010 | Reply

  6. In the post above I did not discuss that an invention has to be useful 35 USC 101. However, I believe a creation is by definition something useful, not just a random collection of elements.

    Comment by dbhalling | June 20, 2010 | Reply

  7. […] For more information see   Non-Obviousness: A Case Study in Judicial Activism. […]

    Pingback by BILSKI: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly « State of Innovation | June 29, 2010 | Reply

  8. […] Reduce Formalism in Patents:  A large part of the cost of obtaining and litigating a patent is overly formalistic requirements.  The Non-obviousness requirement should be repealed.  It is not logically a part of the definition of an invention and is the source of uncertainty, and increases the cost of both obtaining and enforcing/defending patent lawsuits.  For more information see Non-Obviousness a Case of Judicial Activism https://hallingblog.com/2010/06/18/non-obviousness-a-case-study-in-judicial-activism/. […]

    Pingback by Are Transaction Costs for Patents Too High? « State of Innovation | April 15, 2011 | Reply

  9. […] Am I arguing from anecdotal evidence? Perhaps, but I think just about every patent attorney can easily think of several “head scratching” moments when trying to figure out why one claim was rejected while another was allowed.  In defense of the patent office, this is an inevitable result of an arbitrary, subjective patentability standard forced on us by a 160 year-old Supreme Court case. […]

    Pingback by The Nonobviousness Doctrine As An Innovation Tax « Gametime IP | April 19, 2011 | Reply

  10. […] The nonobviousness requirement, section 103, is really the outgrowth of judicial activism (see Non-Obviousness: A Case Study in Judicial Activism).  The only logical basis for the nonobviousness requirement is that you have to be more than just […]

    Pingback by Mayo v. Prometheus: An Update | Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC - Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney - Powered by Clvr.Tv | November 8, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: