Posts Tagged ‘nonobviousness’

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
Subscriber Count
Recent Posts
- UN to Spend Trillions Trying to Create a Perpetual Motion Machine
- Prometheus Fall Out: The SmartGene Case
- Twitter’s IPA”: The Rise of Trade Secrets and the End of Innovation
- Mark Cuban’s a Mythical Patent Creature
- How Do You Determine if it Makes Economic Sense to File a Patent?
- We’re Number 1, We’re Number 1 in Taxes
- Wall Street Journal Proves its Patent Ignorance
- JOBS Act a Small Step in Right Direction
- Supreme Court ‘Only Black Magic Patent Eligible’
- Singapore and the US Divergent Patent Policies
Recent Comments