nonobviousness

In addition, the Court mentioned "secondary considerations" which could serve as evidence of nonobviousness.

Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined.

I do not believe the standard of nonobviousness should vary according to the field of technology involved.

This paragraph deals with the assessment of inventive step (nonobviousness).

They also claimed that the designs lacked the required novelty and nonobviousness to be valid.

This may explain why it is so difficult to find an articulated standard of nonobviousness as it relates specifically to chemical cases.

In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art."

The last two indicate that insofar as it has been articulated, the articulated standard of nonobviousness pre-Graham was the same despite the technology involved.

The Supreme Court's Adams opinion invokes several secondary considerations in favor of nonobviousness.

Since that time, the Federal Circuit has applied the nonobviousness standard to numerous inventions in a variety of technologies, some old and some new.

The Hotchkiss court effectively added the requirement of nonobviousness, and it had been left to the judiciary to determine whether the patent involved non-obvious invention.

Overall, the present standard of nonobviousness is an appropriate standard and reasonably clear and workable when properly applied.

Nowhere is the inconsistency in the application of the nonobviousness standard more appropriate than in the area of software and other high technology patents.

This balance is reflected in the statutory line drawing as to the required degrees of novelty and nonobviousness for issuance of a patent:

To establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 103, certain factual predicates are required before the legal conclusion of obviousness or nonobviousness can be reached.

Legal rights prevent others from copying, selling, and importing the product without authorization from the holder of the property right. Inventive step See 'Nonobviousness."

Today, industrial laws and plant breeders’ rights legislation allows for exclusive monopoly control of virtually all biological processes that meet standard patent criteria (novelty, utility and nonobviousness).

K.N. McKerghan, "The Nonobviousness of Inventions:

Prior to the Patent Act of 1952, the Congress required only novelty and utility for issuance of patent, and never created any statutory requirement of nonobviousness.

Unlike for the determination of novelty, multiple items of prior art may be combined for the determination of whether the requirement of inventive step/ (nonobviousness) is met.

Clark held that the Congress, in passing the Act, intended to codify and clarify the common law surrounding the Patent Act by making explicit the requirement of nonobviousness.

Together with novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

Insofar as a chemical patent may deal with a combination, such as a mixture, the articulated standard of nonobviousness, both pre- and post-Graham, is the same as that articulated for mechanical combinations.

The patent examiner cited only seven previous patents issued between 1963 and 1998, and a 1994 book called 50 Great Sandwiches that were deemed relevant to the novelty and nonobviousness of the invention.

Flash of Genius wants so much to be liked, even with its prickly, difficult hero, that it misses the mark of nonobviousness necessary not only for a patent, but also for a thrilling, original work"."