3 ms·

Patents protect how a problem is solved not what is being solved. Several valid patents can be directed at the same exact problem as long as they solve it usin

Patents protect how a problem is solved not what is being solved. Several valid patents can be directed at the same exact problem as long as they solve it using different techniques.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Yes, exactly. That mechanism must be non-obvious. My suggestion is that if I pose the problem meant to be solved to a random group of professionals and they quickly come up with the mechanism for solving it that an applicant is attempting to patent, then that mechanism is very likely obvious. Take as an example the "Drinking Bird." Imagine the inventor has applied for a patent. You get some materials engineers and a physicist or something in a room, describe a device which resembles a bird and continuously sips water, and ask them to devise a way to build it in a few hours. If they describe a bulb full of dichloromethane with a tube leading up to a beak, then it's not patentable.
- alexanderdmitri 7y ago
  > If they describe a bulb full of dichloromethane with a tube leading up to a beak, then it's not patentable. That seems pretty specific ... what would be an analogous software scenario?
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Problem: customers find ordering things online to be cumbersome and time consuming. We need a for repeat customers to place orders as simply as possible. Programmers/UX designers brainstorming session includes several ideas, including this one: What if we remembered customer addresses and credit card info and just had a single button that said "buy"? Patent denied.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  That's part of it. Other factors that tend to show non-obviousness include being the first to have the idea to make the gadget in the first place; serving an unmet need; combining steps/parts that convention suggests should not be combined; commercial success with the invention; the combination producing surprising results; and so on. Proving non-obviousness is well trod ground in litigation and in patent examinations. It is often the hardest criteria to get over. Though typically obviousness can be proven by finding two or more printed publications that in combination disclose the claimed invention. In this example, the novelty in the claim at issue is related to using a transfer criteria that is a subject identification of the image...wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the image. This was added as the final amendment to get the patent over the prior art the examiner cited. If one can find evidence in [edit: one or more] printed publications that this was going on before 8/8/2008, the patent can be invalidated easily. Otherwise, it will be a slog of litigation.

Patents protect how a problem is solved not what is being solved. Several valid patents can be directed at the same exact problem as long as they solve it using different techniques.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Yes, exactly. That mechanism must be non-obvious. My suggestion is that if I pose the problem meant to be solved to a random group of professionals and they quickly come up with the mechanism for solving it that an applicant is attempting to patent, then that mechanism is very likely obvious. Take as an example the "Drinking Bird." Imagine the inventor has applied for a patent. You get some materials engineers and a physicist or something in a room, describe a device which resembles a bird and continuously sips water, and ask them to devise a way to build it in a few hours. If they describe a bulb full of dichloromethane with a tube leading up to a beak, then it's not patentable.

alexanderdmitri 7y ago
> If they describe a bulb full of dichloromethane with a tube leading up to a beak, then it's not patentable. That seems pretty specific ... what would be an analogous software scenario?
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  Problem: customers find ordering things online to be cumbersome and time consuming. We need a for repeat customers to place orders as simply as possible. Programmers/UX designers brainstorming session includes several ideas, including this one: What if we remembered customer addresses and credit card info and just had a single button that said "buy"? Patent denied.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
That's part of it. Other factors that tend to show non-obviousness include being the first to have the idea to make the gadget in the first place; serving an unmet need; combining steps/parts that convention suggests should not be combined; commercial success with the invention; the combination producing surprising results; and so on. Proving non-obviousness is well trod ground in litigation and in patent examinations. It is often the hardest criteria to get over. Though typically obviousness can be proven by finding two or more printed publications that in combination disclose the claimed invention. In this example, the novelty in the claim at issue is related to using a transfer criteria that is a subject identification of the image...wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the image. This was added as the final amendment to get the patent over the prior art the examiner cited. If one can find evidence in [edit: one or more] printed publications that this was going on before 8/8/2008, the patent can be invalidated easily. Otherwise, it will be a slog of litigation.