How would you answer these questions about patents?
Q. Can function (use, purpose, desired result ) of a device be patented?
A. No. only the means for producing the function, if novel can be the subject of a patent.
Q. Are minor improvement within the range of expected skill patentable?
A. No. the invention must be the product of inventive facilities. It is difficult to convince the court that a
minor improvement is in fact an invention.
Q. What is an expected skill (examples)
A. to build the machine out of different materials, a different form a machine that make the same item and at the
same cost .
Q. Would it be a patentable invention if superior and stronger material is substituted in a machine, having weaker
material?
A. No.
Q. Would it be a patentable invention if superior and stronger material is substituted in a machine, allowing it
to work faster (higher cycle time)?
A. Yes , because it increased efficiency or saving in cost of operation.
Q. Would it be a patentable invention to change the form or design of an existing invention?
A. No, if the change resides within the domain of mere construction.
A. Yes, if the change bring about new function or operation.
Q. Would it be a patentable invention if superior and stronger material is substituted in a machine, allowing it
to break less often?
A. Yes , it lowers the cost operation.
Q. Will it be patentable to change the chemical proportion of the ingredients of a chemical mixture to obtain a
different kind of material?
A. Yes, for example, if in one proportion of rubber ingredients you obtain soft rubber and in another proportion
you obtain a hard rubber, the properties are changed.
Q. Is it a patentable invention to apply an old invention to a new use?
A. No. the application of a device to a new use without changing its construction is not patentable.
Q. Is combining an old device to a new combination a patentable invention?
A. Usually no, unless it makes a new function or lower cost
Q. Is combining many old devices (patented) into a new device, a patentable invention?
A. Yes, you can combine many devices into a machine to make a new machine if its function is new.
Q. Is a newly discovered theory or law of nature patentable?
A. No. but a device to put a theory in operation form might be.
Q. Is the new use by a device, of a theory or law of nature, a patentable device?
A. yes
Q. Is a new process for fabricating an old material or device patentable?
A. Yes.
Q. Is reducing the parts count of an old product (to produce the same function) a patentable invention?
A. Yes, reducing the cost of a machine is patentable
Q. Does the complexity of a device or system ensure patentability?
A. No, it doesn't if a simpler device or system does the same function just as efficiently.
Q. Is a method of doing business patentable?
A. No.
Q. Can a patent be granted for a mere idea?
A. No. the idea must be doable, all device's might be patentable without a actual working device but it can be
demanded that a working model be demonstrated.
Q. In short, What constitutes a patentable invention?
A. A new invention may be subjected of a patent if it is included within the scope of the following characteristics:
1 If the new product consists of a new construction and operation.
2 It shows increased efficiency over the existing products.
3 The product uses parts that are lower cost than the earlier product with the same function.
4 It is novel, useful, easier to use, and cost less than the old product.
5 It uses fewer parts and yields greater efficiency than the older product.
6 It is a new composition of matter with novel use.
An idea or a concept should be developed to its maximum utility and operation can be demonstrated
before it can be considered to be an invention. To develop the idea, the first part is to make drawing and description
of the idea. the drawing and description should enable an average person, skilled, to understand and make a working
model of the invention. At this point you have an invention, and has now been reduced to practice. In law the building
and testing of an invention is called a 'reduction to practice'. The filing of a patent application, while not
an actual reduction to practice, is termed a 'constructive' reduction to practice, or the concept has been reduced
to constructive practice. In the eyes of the law you must have a shown a 'reduction to practice' only by a working
model. The patent office seldom requests the submission of a working model of an invention except in cases where
the invention violates the laws of nature. (i.e. perpetual motion).
PATENT ACT. The selected statutes set out below are all part of a larger statutory scheme known
as the Patent Act, found in Title 35 United States Code,
Sections l -376.
101. Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of
this title.
102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication
in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public
use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United
States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate,
by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application
for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months
before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another
who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention
thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g) before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned,
suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective
dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was
first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
103. Conditions for patentability;
non-obvious subject matter This statute sets out the requirement that an invention must be non-obvious to qualify
for a patent. A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
forth in section 102 of this title, 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 been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies
as prior art only under subsection of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section
where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same
person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
sources:
Patent It Yourself by Patent Attorney David Pressman
Patent It Yourself by Hrand M. Muncheryan
Patent copyright & trademark by Attorney Stephen Elias
Page done by Vince Chemist.
Created on November 21, 1998
Updated on November 29, 2005