This blog post will focus on the topic of "Obviousness" that I heave learned about through lecture, Tal's PowerPoint presentation, and my own research on the web. Through my analysis and research, it has became very clear to me how essential the obviousness element is to the world of patents and innovation.
Obviousness looks directly at prior art, and non-obviousness implies that people could not easily come up with the invention without some elements of research and specific knowledge. Webster's Dictionary defines obviousness as something that is easily discovered, explained, or understood. Furthermore, with respect to patents, one must determine the scope and content of the prior art and the invention must incorporate some unique element other than a minor tweak to something that already exists.
One way to look at obviousness is through benchmarking the patent/invention against other inventions in a similar field/market. This way, we can identify whether a non-obvious jump was made through technology, design, or use. Additionally, if someone in a specific field could look at an invention and consider it already known through combination of resources, then the invention is non-obvious. Although this combination of resources can get complicated, it is a general rule of thumb that makes obviousness a difficult hurdle in the world of patents. In class, we discussed that a patent is obvious if it defined that way by a POSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art).
I hope this provided a comprehensive look at obviousness with regards to patentability. Looking forward to seeing your comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment