OBVIOUSNESS:
- Section 103 of the Patent Act has the fundamental test on what is considered obviousness for patents, namely that “differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”
- You must look at multiple pieces of prior art, not just a single one (as you did with anticipation)
----> this is something I failed to mention before, and I now think is very important!
----> this is something I failed to mention before, and I now think is very important!
- From the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc court case (550 U.S. 398) in 2007: decisions for obviousness vs. non-obviousness must be based upon common sense and does not require a particular teaching-suggestion-or-motivation found within the prior art itself.
Thus, it is not just a person having ordinary skill in the art only, but hopefully like most of us: has COMMON SENSE!
Thus, it is not just a person having ordinary skill in the art only, but hopefully like most of us: has COMMON SENSE!
 |
| err, we'll disregard this part |
Revised claim: "...differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art and average common sense to which the claimed invention pertains.”
Finding legislation which outlines what a patent is a great step towards understanding patent obviousness!
ReplyDelete