質問
Hello!
My question concerns inventions that are based on previous, already patented technological developments. I am of course aware of the fact that most patents out there have been granted for improvement upon previous technology. But especially in the area of Chemical inventions, what kind of progress is required to justify a new patent grant?
Thank you very much
回答: 2 公開 & 0 非公開
That is a difficult question to answer in a generic manner, as all "inventions" depend on the very specific facts of the particular development. Generally, to be patentable in the chemical arts, the progress must be novel and unobvious. Effectively, the result obtained should be new and unexpected. However, if the result was predictable but the benefit from the result greater than expected it could also qualify as unobvious. Some predictable but difficult to obtain results are also patentable. There are many other basis by which a chemical advancement may qualify for patent protection but it would be necessary to discuss specifics before an evaluation could be made.
In the mechanical areas, you simply have to have a feature which is novel and unobvious. Unobviousness, however, is a difficult concept to truly appreciate - not all examiners really understand unobviousness, and not all attorneys truly understand unobviousness. However, the bottom line is, is that if your invention is an improvement over existing patented technology, and is novel and unobvious, you should be able to obtain a patent. Most patents are based upon previous technology which is patented, so there is always a good chance that you can still obtain a patent - it just has to be new and unobvious.
最近の質問
I sometimes see questions on forums like Quora about how to stop people stealing your invention i...
4 5386 2I am looking for useful sources on protecting copyright. I am in the process of writing a book ba...
3 6115 2What is the current wisdom on compiling news feeds on a third party website so far as copyright i...
1 3962 0This might be a silly question but I’m a bit confused by ‘prior disclosure’ as it applies to pate...
2 4823 1