The fifth and final requirement of patentability is the one which causes many self-motivated inventors to fail in this process. This is the requirement of having an adequate and detailed description to clearly structure the invention and label its parts and components. "Once the first four patentability requirements are satisfied the applicant still must describe the invention with enough particularity such that those skilled in the art will be able to make, use and understand the invention that was made by the inventor."
There are three main pillars of this requirement that must be satisfied to demonstrate that one's description is sufficiently adequate. The first, known as the enablement requirement, requires that the inventor describes his or her patent in a way that would enable others to make use of it and license it if possible. This is extremely important because it comes back to the purposes of the intellectual property system. It is true that patents exist to protect patent-holders, but they also exist to enable others to make use of the patent in a legal way that benefits society. An inadequate description of the patent may make it hard for others to use the given invention, so it is extremely important that the description fulfills the enable requirement.
The second, known as the Best Mode requirement, requires the inventor to disclose the way in which he or she will use this invention. This is important because it also makes sure that inventions actually will be used in a useful, interesting way. However, this requirement has for the most part been eliminated from US patent law. A law passed in 2011, known as the America Invents Act (AIA), prevents a patent from being invalidated as a result of a failure to present the best mode of use. This leaves the system in a strange place because inventors are still required to disclose the best mode but this law prevents any penalization for failing to do so.
The third, known as the written description requirement, is probably the most confusing and least well-understood. "The written description requirement serves a teaching function, as a “quid pro quo” in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time." What this means is that the written description requires that the inventor provide the public with a meaningful understanding of the invention and how it will be used, in exchange for protection of their intellectual property. "For generations the written description requirement had been confined to making sure that what was originally filed in the patent application adequately defined the full parameters of the invention being claimed. Today, the written description requirement means much more, but the Federal Circuit has yet to be able to articulate the requirements in a coherent way. Commentators have called the new written description requirement a super-enablement requirement." Since this requirement has a great degree of vagueness, it is important to understand that the best thing to do is to describe the invention with as much detail as possible and to be as hyper-specific in the patent-filing process as is humanly possible.
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/
There are three main pillars of this requirement that must be satisfied to demonstrate that one's description is sufficiently adequate. The first, known as the enablement requirement, requires that the inventor describes his or her patent in a way that would enable others to make use of it and license it if possible. This is extremely important because it comes back to the purposes of the intellectual property system. It is true that patents exist to protect patent-holders, but they also exist to enable others to make use of the patent in a legal way that benefits society. An inadequate description of the patent may make it hard for others to use the given invention, so it is extremely important that the description fulfills the enable requirement.
The second, known as the Best Mode requirement, requires the inventor to disclose the way in which he or she will use this invention. This is important because it also makes sure that inventions actually will be used in a useful, interesting way. However, this requirement has for the most part been eliminated from US patent law. A law passed in 2011, known as the America Invents Act (AIA), prevents a patent from being invalidated as a result of a failure to present the best mode of use. This leaves the system in a strange place because inventors are still required to disclose the best mode but this law prevents any penalization for failing to do so.
The third, known as the written description requirement, is probably the most confusing and least well-understood. "The written description requirement serves a teaching function, as a “quid pro quo” in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time." What this means is that the written description requires that the inventor provide the public with a meaningful understanding of the invention and how it will be used, in exchange for protection of their intellectual property. "For generations the written description requirement had been confined to making sure that what was originally filed in the patent application adequately defined the full parameters of the invention being claimed. Today, the written description requirement means much more, but the Federal Circuit has yet to be able to articulate the requirements in a coherent way. Commentators have called the new written description requirement a super-enablement requirement." Since this requirement has a great degree of vagueness, it is important to understand that the best thing to do is to describe the invention with as much detail as possible and to be as hyper-specific in the patent-filing process as is humanly possible.
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/
The second point that you mentioned is that the inventor must address how the plan on using the invention. I completely agree and am glad that the requirement has been mostly eliminated in US patent law. I do think that the inventor doesn't necessarily need to come up with the best mode in which the invention can be used. A thousand brains is better than one in figuring that out! Therefore it is a very good thing that they are penalized if they didn't come up with the best mode. They already did all the leg work of figuring out the product anywho!
ReplyDelete