Obviousness Checking

I have discussed the importance of obviousness, what it means, and how it is checked by the examiner. I will continue that discussion by also bringing in the exact requirements and the crafting process of a patent for the obviousness check.

The following website  lists the legal requirements for a patent to be considered non-obviousness. It refers back to the patent being obvious to "one of ordinary skill in the art".

Due to subjectivity, which was discussed in the last blog, proving non-obviousness can be a difficult and demanding challenge as one must show their patent is non-obviousness and deserves the protection of patents. Therefore when applying for a patent, to not be rejected, one must know the close inventions in the field that could possibly relate through prior arts. And if they do relate, to be able to prove that the current invention is non obvious. It is important to be clear, concise, and detailed for the examiner to realize the invention is non-obvious. 

If the prior art of one previous patent does not the current invention, the examiner can combine two or more prior arts and attempt to find all of the attributes of the new invention within that combination. And if it is found, then the invention will be rejected due to being obvious.

The video below describes in general two very important criteria in getting a patent accepted and published. It does not separate by novelty and obviousness, but rather more vaguely. The two criteria in the video are "Patentable subject matter" and the second is "How different is it from things that already exist?" The first criteria refers to what types of things can be patented such as machines and processes. Ideas such as religion and items of nature cannot be patented. The second topic relates more towards novelty and obviousness. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwFzTYH4Ge0