Non -obviousness

It is not necessary for a patentable invention to be the result of an ingenious idea. Article 56 EPC requires an inventive step which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art , regarding the state of the art at the time the application was filed. Similarly in the USA ... a patent may not be obtained. .. if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains (35 USC, 103). 

Despite the conformity of both definitions (not obvious regarding the prior art to a person skilled in the art), there is considerable room to speculate how these terms are defined in each individual case. Almost inevitably these terms are interpreted differently by the applicant and the patent examiner during the prosecution of a patent application. In the absence of official general explanations for non-obviousness to a person skilled in the art the following attributes may help to decide whether an alleged invention meets this requirement (see also Vossius, 1982). 

The last point of the list seems to be in contradiction with the requirement for novelty. However, novelty must apply to the patented matter, which in this case would be the new use. The inventiveness lies in the fact that the new use for a known product was not obvious in light of what was known in the field. 

The first really unbiased persons having ordinary skill in the art to judge a patent application will be the patent examiners. If they come to the conclusion that an invention is obvious (for example because it combines two pieces of well known prior art), this may be due to the 

---

Note that the functional names Immediately and obviously call to mind the operational nature of the various engineering constants. In contrast, the non-functional names are a maze of either complicated non-obvious terms or names of people who do not bring to mind what the terms are supposed to mean. Thus, the functional names are preferred for ease of use and clarity of understanding. 

The Pomeranz-Fritsch-Bobbitt cyclisation of activated amino-acetal 38 yielded the desired 4-hydroxyquinoline 39 in acceptable yield. The non-obvious regioselectivity of the cyclisation can be attributed to the overriding para-directing effect of alkoxy groups. ... 

A number of interesting and non-obvious insights into molecular weight distributions can be gained from these simulations. For example, Fig. 3 demonstrates the effect of X on M IM as a function of C0 for irreversible chain transfer where C = 0. 

A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period. The applicant for a patent must demonstrate novelty, utility or usefulness and non-obviousness. An important distinction exists in patent law between discoveries, which are not patentable, and inventions. In contrast to commodity patents, biological patents have ethical and social impact. 

To be patentable, an invention must be new and useful, as well as non-obvious. The Patent Office detmnines novelty by searching prior patents and publications. The patent must also contain a written description to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains. .. to make and use the invention. Non-obviousness is determined in light of the prior art and involves asking whether a person skilled in the art would consider the invention to be obvious. ... 

Contrary to the previous case, using strategies with low MOTs, cell infection will not be synchronised and the cell population will be distributed over different cell status and different specific infection times (T]) [102], leading to a non-obvious definition of the optimal harvest time, extension of cell lysis and the increase in the proteolytic activity is not easy to predict and account. Although this could be considered a drawback in low MOI strategies, it is possible to control the extension of proteolysis [33,83] by the addition of protease inhibitors. 

Non-obviousness (inventiveness) means that the invention/innovation process must not be something that would be immediately obvious to somebody skilled in the art. Non-obviousness, although it sounds straightforward, is often a difficult concept to apply in practice. Obviousness could be described as a simple and logical progression of prior art, thus non-obviousness requires an additional ingredient of inspiration or often chanced good luck. 

The patent application document may be considered under a number of headings (Table 2.2). After the title comes the abstract, which identifies the innovation and the innovation area. Relevant prior art is then overviewed in detail in the background section. This is drawn mainly from published research articles and pre-existing patents. An adequate preparation of this section relies on prior completion of a comprehensive literature and patent search. Next, a short paragraph that details the problem the innovation will solve is presented. This should emphasize why the innovation should be considered novel and non-obvious. This in turn is followed by a detailed technical description of the innovation, such that an ordinary person skilled in the art could reproduce it. If, for example, microbial cultures or animal cells form part of the innovation, these must be deposited in an approved depository (e.g. the American Type Culture... 

In general, any new and non-obvious biotechnological innovation that leads to an industrially useful product or process is patentable unless it is specifically excluded from patentabihty by law. Thus, a novel microorganism as polynucleotide is potentially patentable a novel protein or peptide is potentially patentable a novel method of preparing a known protein or peptide is potentially patentable and a new use for a known microorganism polynucleotide, protein or peptide is potentially patentable. 

In general, the EPO consider inventive step on a so-called problem-and solution basis if the solution to a known problem is not obvious to the person skilled in the art then there is an inventive step. The single closest prior disclosttre is iderrtified and the obviousness or non-obviousness of the solution is assessed in relation to that disclosttre. The US courts have generally considered whether the prior disclostttes wottld have suggested to those of skill in the art that they should make the claimed compositiorr, or carry out the claimed process and whether the prior disclosure would have revealed that in making the claimed invention or carrying out the claimed process, those of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success. 

The procedure for obtaining a patent is typically started by filing a national patent application in a patent office of a country which is party to the Paris Convention (an international treaty agreeing certain reciprocal patent rights). This application can provide a so-called priority date for the invention disclosed in this priority application such that the patentability of the invention is assessed as of that date. This priority date can given to further patent applications filed in other Paris Convention territories provided that these further patent applications are filed within 12 months of the first priority application. A patent application must be filed before any public disclosure of the invention since, in most territories, public disclosures before the priority date can be used to attack the novelty and non-obviousness of an invention described in a patent application. 

Search and examination of an application are necessary in most countries before a patent can be granted. The purpose of the search is to identify documents (whether earlier patent applications or journal articles) which are relevant in assessing whether the invention claimed in the patent application is new or non-obvious the purpose of the examination is for a patent office examiner to assess whether the claimed invention meets all the requirements of patentability and other requirements of patent law. The examination process is an interactive procedure between the patent examiner and patent applicant (or more usually his professional representative) in which the patent applicant may have to put forward arguments and evidence to rebut objections that the patent examiner may have to the patent application. During this process the patent applicant may have to amend (i.e. redefine) the claims to his invention. 

Obvious" and "Non-Obvious" Pathways to a Highly Substituted Pyridine and Aniline... 

A more recent reinvestigation of this reaction, however, has shown that the rate of formation of both (3) and (4) varies with experimental conditions. In particular, the relative stoichiometry of (1) and (2) was found to be important, and the aniline (4) could be obtained predominantly at a ratio of (2) (1) of 2 1. The investigators then suggested a "non-obvious" pathway for the formation of (4). 

It may be possible to find a subset of SAR data that supports any model. In our approach to evaluation of SAR here, we have been specifically looking for data that can t be explained by the EC interaction. Accordingly, we have tried to show some of the more unusual, non-obvious cases here. The binding mode to which our EC analysis... 

The internal stock of knowledge is not the same as prior art, but some/much will be. A patentable invention is one that is new and non-obvious over the prior art. 

Showing that an invention could be useful is usually not a problem. If it is not useful, don t patent However, showing that an invention is novel and non-obvious to people in the field of... 

You can patent a product or process that is useful, novel and non-obvious. This gives you the right to deter the use of the patent by others for a period of (usually) 20 years. 

---