
	Where results make sense

Topic: Nonobviousness and inventive step

In the News (Thu 10 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
		To qualify for a patent, an inventor must show that his or her invention is novel, manifests an "inventive step" (i.e., that the invention was nonobvious) and is industrially applicable.
		The inventive step is often evaluated by considering the "unexpected" or "surprising" effect of the claimed invention.
		In establishing the existence of inventive step, it is generally necessary to consider not only the knowledge derived from a single prior document, but also the combined knowledge of existing literature, patent documents and other prior art.
	www.southcentre.org /publications/publichealth/publichealth-06.htm (2993 words)

	Inventive step and non-obviousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive, i.e.
		The expression "inventive step" is predominantly used for instance in Germany, in the United Kingdom and under the European Patent Convention (EPC), while the expression "non-obviousness" is predominantly used in United States patent law.
		Although the basic principle is roughly the same, the assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Inventive_step (979 words)

	Spartanburg SC \| GoUpstate.com \| Spartanburg Herald-Journal
		The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same 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.
		The expression "inventive step" is predominantly used for instance in Germany, in the United Kingdom and under the European Patent Convention (EPC), while the expression "non-obviousness" is predominantly used in United States patent law.
		Although the basic principle is roughly the same, the assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another.
	www.goupstate.com /apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness (1274 words)

	Patentable subject matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In most patent laws, patentable subject matter (or statutory subject matter) is the requirement that an invention, for which patent protection is sought, is of a kind of subject matter that is, by law, allowed patent protection.
		This test is one of the fundamental requirements for patentability, along with novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, and utility or industrial applicability.
		Patentable subject-matter considerations also intervene again at a secondary level, during the inventive step examination.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Patentable_subject_matter (1003 words)

	Frequently Asked Questions: Determining the validity of patents (in Patents > Frequently Asked Questions @ ...
		You have to demonstrate to the court that the patent does not meet the statutory requirements for patentability, for example because it is not novel or does not involve an inventive step.
		A patent must be novel and involve an inventive step (in the US: be non-obvious) when compared to the prior art.
		If you find a publication that was publicly available before the relevant date, the next step is to compare the publication with the claims at the end of the patent document.
	www.iusmentis.com /patents/faq/validity (898 words)

	[No title]
		If the claims have industrial applicability and novelty but lack inventive step, use this form paragraph and additionally use one or more of form paragraphs 18.02, 18.02.01 and 18.02.02, as appropriate.
		If the claims lack inventive step over a combination of references, the reasons must explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the applied references.
		Claim [1] an inventive step under PCT Article 33(3) as being obvious over the prior art as applied in the immediately preceding paragraph and further in view of [2].
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1800_1845_01.htm (2712 words)

	MPEP Section 1878
		Conduct of international preliminary examination (a) An international preliminary examination will be conducted to formulate a non-binding opinion as to whether the claimed invention has novelty, involves an inventive step (is non-obvious) and is industrially applicable.
		All claims without fatal defects are treated on the merits in Item V as to novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability.
		If, for example, claims define over the prior art and meet the test of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability, a statement equivalent to detailed reasons for allowance in a corresponding U.S. application, indicating how the claims meet the tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability is sufficient.
	patents.ame.nd.edu /mpep6/ch_18/mpep_1878.html (2875 words)

	MPEP Section 1879
		It shall state, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3), in relation to each claim, whether the claim appears to satisfy the criteria of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability, as defined for the purposes of the international preliminary examination in Article 33(1) to (4).
		The statement shall be accompanied by the citation of the documents believed to support the stated conclusion with such explanations as the circumstances of the case may require.
		Indications that a report has not been established on the questions of novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability, either as to some claims or as to all claims, are given in item III on the Report.
	patents.ame.nd.edu /mpep6/ch_18/mpep_1879.html (1865 words)

	Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries: IV. PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS: ...
		In United States practice, for example, courts applying the non-obviousness standard (the U.S., equivalent to inventive step) undertake a three-step factual inquiry, examining:
		Though sometimes difficult to apply, the inventive step or non-obviousness requirement is critical to prevent the granting of patents on trivial developments.
		Many countries’ case law holds that there is no inventive step whenever it would be obvious - for a person with average skills - to test new matter with a significant likelihood of success.
	www.who.int /medicinedocs/library.fcgi?e=d-0edmweb--00-1-0--010---4----0--0-10l--1en-5000---50-about-0---01131-0011cbMB3ocm9ee80ca70000000044c8ab49-0utfZz-8-0-0&a=d&c=edmweb&cl=CL2.2.3&d=Jh2963e.8.2 (618 words)

	Automating Invention: July 2005 Archives
		I suppose the next step would be for the simulated humans to write a (simulated) simulation of (simulated) humans, and so on, and so on.
		This is consistent with the underlying purpose of the novelty and nonobviousness requirements, namely to issue patents "only for those literally new solutions that are beyond the grasp of the ordinary artisan who had a full understanding of the pertinent prior art." Chisum on Patents, 5.01 (emphasis added).
		One reason for this (at least in the U.S.) is that the section of the patent statute that defines nonobviousness explicitly states that "[p]atentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made." 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
	www.automatinginvention.com /archives/2005/07 (5419 words)

	[No title]
		There were four general case study categories: (i) claims to the underlying protein structural data; (ii) claims for the proteins, polypeptides and protein domains defined by the data; (iii) in silico screening methods, and; (iv) compounds.
		First, the actual steps of the method were known in the prior art, and the only distinction over the prior art was the specific molecular structure(s) defined by atomic position data.
		Second, the nature of the atom positional data did not otherwise change the steps of the method, rendering it “non-functional” data (non-functional data cannot be relied upon as a sole source of novelty).
	www.aplf.org /mailer/issue43.html (771 words)

	Electronic Law Journals - JILT 2004 (1) - Zekos
		The inventive process involves the practical implementation of a discovery or idea but what should be decisive is what technical contribution the invention makes to the known art.
		While the process for purifying the substance is inventive and the proper subject of a patent, the purified substance itself is not.
		In order for a substance based upon a naturally occurring phenomenon to comprise an invention that substance must be significantly transformed from the state in which it naturally occurs and so the biological function of the chemical or tissue at issue must be different from its function in nature.
	www2.warwick.ac.uk /fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/zekos (9144 words)

	[No title]
		If some or all of the claims of an application relate to subject matter which does not require international preliminary examination, check the appropriate box, indicate which claims relate to that subject matter and specify the reasons.
		If the claims, the description, or the drawings are so unclear, or the claims are so inadequately supported by the description, that no meaningful opinion can be formed on the question of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) or industrial applicability, the applicant is so informed in Item III (PCT Article 34(4)(a)(ii)).
		Normally only in those international applications where all the formal matters are proper and the claims are directed to inventions which have novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability will an international preliminary examination report be established without a written opinion having been issued first.
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1800_1878_01.htm (3782 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)