3 ms·

>You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? This is the idea of researching prior art...and could be extended to the

>You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? This is the idea of researching prior art...and could be extended to the numerous other RFID technologies that are patented, I mentioned a few that were part of my patent application: 1. RFID shopping cart (presumably inventor didn't invent shopping carts or RFID) and 2. 1 time use RFID hospital bands (again inventor invented neither hospital bands or RFID). Ultimately, combining two technologies (using the term loosely) in non-obvious (sometimes it is obvious) results in a new patentable invention. I realize you were using your example as just that, but while a PBJ will not be patentable, one could copyright the recipe. Coke specifically avoided doing this in a counter-intuitive measure to protect the closely guarded secret formula (which would otherwise be publicly disclosed if a copyright was filed).

mdorazio 12y ago
Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html This is why Coke's recipe is a trade secret instead. I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity.
- will_brown 12y ago
  >Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted Yes; however, as the link you provide explains if more than just a simple listing of ingredients (i.e. description, pictures, ect...) the same can be awarded copyright. A copyright on a cook book is still the industry standard, because a single filing/fee covers an entire book of recipes. >I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity. 100%, much like trademark and copyright much is left to the subjectivity of the reviewer. I will say this about the patent office (compared to trademarks), the reviewers are generally very well educated in their respective fields (engineering, medicine, ect...). The only other way to gain more insight into obviousness standard is reading case law/precedent.

mdorazio 12y ago

Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html This is why Coke's recipe is a trade secret instead. I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity.

will_brown 12y ago
>Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted Yes; however, as the link you provide explains if more than just a simple listing of ingredients (i.e. description, pictures, ect...) the same can be awarded copyright. A copyright on a cook book is still the industry standard, because a single filing/fee covers an entire book of recipes. >I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity. 100%, much like trademark and copyright much is left to the subjectivity of the reviewer. I will say this about the patent office (compared to trademarks), the reviewers are generally very well educated in their respective fields (engineering, medicine, ect...). The only other way to gain more insight into obviousness standard is reading case law/precedent.