This time I will be discussing Obviousness regarding Patents and their legitimacy.
Obviousness has to do with determining whether or not a patent is actually creating a new original invention or simply combining already existing inventions in a way that is "obvious". What this "obvious" means is the root of all discussion and delicacy.
Initially for a patent to be called obvious one simply applied the TSM test:
- In its prior arts there needs to be a Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation towards the combination of the elements that make up the new patent.
This implies that now many patents are disallowed due to obviousness if they yield a predictable result in combining prior arts, if it is common sense for a POSITA and if it an improvement likely to have been thought of.
Graham analysis
Graham v Deere
This new method is an improvement on the existing system allowing for a more dynamic analysis of inventions.
Please view my below video for a discussion on the above!
Hey Oliviero,
ReplyDeleteI liked your content, but I think your formatting was a little bit hard to follow. Great work though.
Hey Oliviero,
ReplyDeleteI like that you covered one of the best topics on obviousness, including the TSM and Graham tests. It looks good! Maybe next time, we could see a little more on the Graham tests. But otherwise, nice job!
Oliviero,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your claim about the TSM (teaching, suggestion, motivation) towards the combination of elements, is this implying that there has to be an extension of the patent thought by a person who is already an expert in the field? That seems counterintuitive to me as a patent can be filed by anyone and anyone can advance the interests which they see fit. However, I really liked your organization and how you expressed your thoughts!
Cheers