1 / 10

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property. Boston College Law School February 26, 2007 Patent - Nonobviousness. Requirements. (1) Patentable Subject Matter (2) Novelty (3) Utility (4) Nonobviousness (5) Enablement. Nonobviousness. 35 U.S.C. § 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.

kylynn-cantu
Download Presentation

Intellectual Property

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 26, 2007 Patent - Nonobviousness

  2. Requirements • (1) Patentable Subject Matter • (2) Novelty • (3) Utility • (4) Nonobviousness • (5) Enablement

  3. Nonobviousness • 35 U.S.C. § 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. • “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 … 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 beenobvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains …”

  4. Nonobviousness • Factors in the analysis • (1) Scope and content of prior art • (2) Differences between invention and prior art • (3) Level of ordinary skill in the art • (4) “Secondary considerations” • Commercial success • Long-felt but unsolved needs • Failure of others to invent • Copying by others

  5. Chisel Plow

  6. Graham v. John Deere

  7. In re Dembiczak

  8. Nonobviousness • Secondary considerations • Commercial success • Long-felt but unsolved needs • Failure of others to invent • Copying by others

  9. Problem 3-10 • Claimed invention • Lollipop in shape of human thumb • Wrapped in a mold that can be worn • Contains gum inside lollipop • Prior art references • Siciliano: ice cream wrapped in a removable mold • Copeman: lollipops in various molds usable as balloons • Harris: hollow, thumb-shaped lollipop • Webster: chewing gum enclosing liquid syrup

  10. Administrative • Next Assignment • Through IV.C.3 – Doctrine of Equivalents

More Related