We have established that anything that is an invention can be patented. However, we must first note that in order to be considered an invention, a given thing must do something useful that provides benefits for a certain group of people. In this post, I will examine the requirements for considering an invention useful, and how this is determined.
The basis of the patent system is to protect invention and innovation for the purpose of moving society forward and benefitting the American people. Thus, patents aim only to protect inventions that can show how they are actually improving the lives of Americans.
It is therefore, extremely important for the patent-filer to specify clearly the utility of the given invention and highlight how it will help people in unique ways that do not exist without it. The two ways in which the patent office can reject an invention for not being useful is (1) if the filer does not specify clearly how the invention will be used to benefit people and (2) if the claimed use is determined to be non-credible or unrealistic.
This last determination seems like it has the potential to be arbitrary, so I will now explain how the Supreme Court determines if an invention's claim to utility is non-credible. The courts evaluate the logic behind a patent-filer's claim to credible utility and determine if the logic underlying the assertion is flawed, if the facts underlying the logic are flawed, or if a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion of utility to be incredible. If any of these three points are determined to be true, the invention is deemed non-useful and is not granted a patent.
These two standards (utility and patentable subject material) set quite a low bar for patenting, since it makes it seem like any concrete invention that helps people can be patented. The next few requirements will determine why it is extremely difficult to have a patent granted in your favor.
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/02/patentability-overview-when-can-an-invention-be-patented/id=23863/
The basis of the patent system is to protect invention and innovation for the purpose of moving society forward and benefitting the American people. Thus, patents aim only to protect inventions that can show how they are actually improving the lives of Americans.
It is therefore, extremely important for the patent-filer to specify clearly the utility of the given invention and highlight how it will help people in unique ways that do not exist without it. The two ways in which the patent office can reject an invention for not being useful is (1) if the filer does not specify clearly how the invention will be used to benefit people and (2) if the claimed use is determined to be non-credible or unrealistic.
This last determination seems like it has the potential to be arbitrary, so I will now explain how the Supreme Court determines if an invention's claim to utility is non-credible. The courts evaluate the logic behind a patent-filer's claim to credible utility and determine if the logic underlying the assertion is flawed, if the facts underlying the logic are flawed, or if a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion of utility to be incredible. If any of these three points are determined to be true, the invention is deemed non-useful and is not granted a patent.
These two standards (utility and patentable subject material) set quite a low bar for patenting, since it makes it seem like any concrete invention that helps people can be patented. The next few requirements will determine why it is extremely difficult to have a patent granted in your favor.
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/02/patentability-overview-when-can-an-invention-be-patented/id=23863/
No comments:
Post a Comment