In these next 5 posts, I will be discussing the 5 understood requirements when considering the patentability of an invention. Though there are many other things that need to be fulfilled, these 5 categories are the main ones determining whether or not a product can actually be patented, and are thus extremely important to understand carefully.
The first of these five requirements is the notion of subject matter that is patent eligible. This asks the USPTO and the inventor to consider the question of whether the invention put forth is something that can and, more importantly, should be patented. "Is this invention something that the patent laws are designed to protect?"
In considering this question, one must understand what sort of materials and inventions have been patented before. In the United States, almost any material invention can be patented and protected. This includes, but is not limited to technology, software, genetics, discoveries, algorithms, complex systems, biotechnology, and even some business methods that are tethered to some sort of apparatus. Though this seems extremely broad, the truth of the matter is that this is an intentional aspect of the US patent system. We want to make sure that almost any invention can potentially be patented because any innovation and inventions should be protected in this country.
Then what doesn't fall under this category. Well, the court highlights three specific categories that would be excluded from the realm of patentable inventions. The first is laws of nature, since obviously, they are pre-existing rules that define how the world works and cannot nor should not be owned by any one person. The second is natural phenomena since these are functions of the way the world works and not of creativity or application put forth by man. As such, they also should not be able to be owned by any one person. For example, to say that a person could patent a waterfall would be ridiculous since this occurs in nature and is clearly not an invention by a human being. Thirdly, the court identifies "abstract ideas" as a category which cannot be patented. Since abstract ideas are not necessarily tangible nor applicable as an invention, it can often be difficult to identify how exactly these would be used as an invention. Without doing this, it is not really possible to patent these ideas.
With this identified, we can now move to the next 4 requirements of patentability, namely (2) utility, (3) novelty, (4) non-obviousness, and (5) an adequate description.
Source:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/02/patentability-overview-when-can-an-invention-be-patented/id=23863/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/
The first of these five requirements is the notion of subject matter that is patent eligible. This asks the USPTO and the inventor to consider the question of whether the invention put forth is something that can and, more importantly, should be patented. "Is this invention something that the patent laws are designed to protect?"
In considering this question, one must understand what sort of materials and inventions have been patented before. In the United States, almost any material invention can be patented and protected. This includes, but is not limited to technology, software, genetics, discoveries, algorithms, complex systems, biotechnology, and even some business methods that are tethered to some sort of apparatus. Though this seems extremely broad, the truth of the matter is that this is an intentional aspect of the US patent system. We want to make sure that almost any invention can potentially be patented because any innovation and inventions should be protected in this country.
Then what doesn't fall under this category. Well, the court highlights three specific categories that would be excluded from the realm of patentable inventions. The first is laws of nature, since obviously, they are pre-existing rules that define how the world works and cannot nor should not be owned by any one person. The second is natural phenomena since these are functions of the way the world works and not of creativity or application put forth by man. As such, they also should not be able to be owned by any one person. For example, to say that a person could patent a waterfall would be ridiculous since this occurs in nature and is clearly not an invention by a human being. Thirdly, the court identifies "abstract ideas" as a category which cannot be patented. Since abstract ideas are not necessarily tangible nor applicable as an invention, it can often be difficult to identify how exactly these would be used as an invention. Without doing this, it is not really possible to patent these ideas.
With this identified, we can now move to the next 4 requirements of patentability, namely (2) utility, (3) novelty, (4) non-obviousness, and (5) an adequate description.
Source:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/02/patentability-overview-when-can-an-invention-be-patented/id=23863/
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/
No comments:
Post a Comment