Patent Obviousness: Online Research

The article I used for this post is linked here.


What is Obviousness:
The article I chose to evaluate was from a patent innovation sight called IpWatchDogs. The term of obviousness was set forth by the United States Supreme Court 50 years ago in the Graham v. John Deere case, which solidified non-obviousness as a key factor in determining patentability. Prior to the Graham v. John Deere case the benchmark had been the KSR v. Teleflex case, which defined obviousness as the existence of two previous inventions that would constitute the innovation. The courts to that point also employed a teaching, suggesting or motivation test to determine obviousness If the invention did not teach, suggest, or motivate, it was a obvious invention. The test was eventually thrown out for being too restrictive.

Now there exist 6 rationale a court can reject a patent basis on:

The other rationales available to the examiner are:

1. If the invention a product of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results the invention is obvious.
2. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results the invention is obvious.
3. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way the invention is obvious.
4. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results the invention is obvious.
5. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed the invention is obvious.
6. If known work in one filed of endeavor prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art the invention is obvious.

These are the laws and rules that constituted the definition of obviousness before its culmination into what we have today.