3 ms·

I think brilliant or even innovative should not be the same thing as patentable. The (possible impossible) standard should be "would someone else have come up w

by netcan 11y ago

I think brilliant or even innovative should not be the same thing as patentable. The (possible impossible) standard should be "would someone else have come up with this." In both of those example, I think the answer is almost certainly yes. Give 100 UI designers a touch screen and ask them to design a few unlock mechanisms each, I think you will get a slide to unlock pretty quickly. On click purchase (is this a troll) is basically saving billing and shipping details.

brlewis 11y ago
Here's the theory about what's supposed to be patentable: Statutory material: No matter how brilliant, a poem, law of nature, mathematical algorithm or computer program is supposedly not patentable. Lots of details at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Novelty: It has to be new. This is where prior art comes in. Non-obviousness: This is the test for patenability you're talking about. It can be hard to judge obviousness in hindsight. There are so many specialty areas today that it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to be able to determine what would be obvious to an ordinary practitioner in every area of invention.