A comment re: the three requirements of patentability
A friend who is very knowledgable has responded to the note, the three requirements of patentability, and given me permission to post the comment anonymously.
The response begins: I would argue that there are four requirements for patentability: 1) potentially patentable subject matter, 2) utility, 3) novelty / no loss of right; and 4) non-obviousness. I can't view obviousness as just an aspect of novelty. At least since the Supreme Court's 1850 "doorknob" decision in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, patentability has required "something more" than mere novelty. Figuring out just what that something more is, of course, has been and continues to be a struggle. Maybe the Supreme Court will grant cert in the KSR case and enlighten us all.
I am also wary of suggesting that the novelty requirement is based on section 101. That section does refer to new" inventions, but as GSR stressed in In re Bergy, novelty has long been analyzed in all its gory details under section 102.
What are your thoughts? Send a comment.
The response begins: I would argue that there are four requirements for patentability: 1) potentially patentable subject matter, 2) utility, 3) novelty / no loss of right; and 4) non-obviousness. I can't view obviousness as just an aspect of novelty. At least since the Supreme Court's 1850 "doorknob" decision in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, patentability has required "something more" than mere novelty. Figuring out just what that something more is, of course, has been and continues to be a struggle. Maybe the Supreme Court will grant cert in the KSR case and enlighten us all.
I am also wary of suggesting that the novelty requirement is based on section 101. That section does refer to new" inventions, but as GSR stressed in In re Bergy, novelty has long been analyzed in all its gory details under section 102.
What are your thoughts? Send a comment.
posted by maui muse at
12:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home