Eric Paul's Nonobviousness - 9 FEB 2011
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)
Prior to Hotchkiss v. Greenwood an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of nonobviousness.
- ...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.
- The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.
- But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.
- Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.
- But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.
- The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood institutes language that would later be made into law by congress in Section 103. The court applied the test, "that if no more ingenuity and skill was necessary to construct the new knob than was possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, the patent was void." This would later become law in section 103 which states that "a patent may not be obtained...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...to a person having ordinary skill in the art." The court concluded that the construction of the knob was, in fact, obvious to an individual possessing ordinary skill in the art, concluding that, "the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor."
A&P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)
While it pre-dates the language of section 103, A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950) discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.
- First the "level of invention" was partly evidenced by "long felt but unsatisfied need" which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.
- While the court recognized that the patent had enjoyed commercial success, it also explained that, "commercial success without invention will not make patentability." The fact that a product is received well by others associated with the art does not mean that it deserves a patent unless it adequately advances knowledge in the art. Commercial success could indicate nonobviousness because success proves that it is a desirable product. If it was obvious then someone else would have already created it to meet that desire. This will become a secondary consideration in later cases to determine whether the patent is obvious or not. In this situation, the court decided that the commercial success did not demand a patent for the product.
- Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.
- In its decision, the court called attention to the Constitution's statement on patents that they are, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." According to the court, a patent must significantly advance knowledge in a science or some similar field. They should not be given for simple improvements and gadgets. A patent gives the individual a monopoly on the product. If patents are given for every simple idea then they would impede the development of industry. According to the court, a patent, "has to be of such quality and distinction that masters of the scientific field in which it falls will recognize it as an advance."
- Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.
- This case discusses issuing patents for an item which is a combination of old products. The court sites an old case when it says, "the mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not a patentable invention." In other words, a combination is not patentable if it does not accomplish a new goal that sufficiently advances knowledge in the art. The court continues by saying that, "only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable." More cases will arise in later years that deal with patents that are obvious combinations of old products. Indeed, unless the patent is for a newly discovered element, every product contains old products. However, in order to merit a patent, the combination must perform an advanced function beyond that of its parts.
35 USC 103 (1952)
This section of the code was adopted in 1952. It deals with the nonobvious requirement for patents. Paragraph (a) is written as follows:
- 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.
The beginning of the paragraph refers to section 102. The invention must first satisfy the requirements for novelty as laid out in the previous section of title 35 in order to be considered for a patent under the stipulations of section 103. Next, the code explains that in order to be eligible for a patent the differences between the invention in question and the prior art must not be obvious to an individual with ordinary skill level in the art. In other words, the improvements that separate the new invention from the prior art must not be obvious to someone with regular expertise in the particular subject matter. This statement leads to a process for determining obviousness that will be laid out in Graham v. John Deere. This process involves basing decisions for nonobviousness after analyzing the "scope and content" of the prior art, the differences between the new invention and the prior art, and the ordinary skill of an individual in that art. The final sentence of the paragraph in section 103 means that the process by which the inventor develops his product or process can be disregarded when considering its patentability. The complexity of a development process does not make an invention any more or less obvious. It is possible for a nonobvious improvement to be the result of a simple change, previously overlooked.
Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)
In Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955) Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:
- Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been "obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art" — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4
In the above passage, the court touches on two key points that can be considered secondary considerations used towards determining the obviousness of an invention. It states that, "the most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory." This explanation points out that those possessing at least ordinary skill in the art had tried and failed several times in the past to solve the same issue fixed by Lyon's product. This fact leads one to believe that the product was a nonobvious creation. Had it been obvious, then others would not have failed in their endeavors. Additionally, the court points out that Lyon's product, "supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field." This further highlights the desire for a non-reflective lens in the art. Great demand for a product would lead one to consider that the development is nonobvious. If it was obvious, the product would already have been created in order to meet that demand. It is something to consider when debating the obviousness of a product. If there is little demand for the product, then perhaps it was an obvious invention, and the reason it was not created was because nobody desired the product. From Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, one can take away two secondary considerations for determining the obviousness of a product. These are previous failed attempts to create the product and reception of the product by those associated with the art.
Graham v. John Deere (1966)
In Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of "inventiveness" to the statutory language of "nonobviousness." The criteria to determine nonobviousness include
- scope and content of the prior art;
- differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
- level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
- secondary considerations, including:
- commercial success of the invention;
- long-felt but unsolved needs;
- failure of others to find a solution, etc.
U.S. v. Adams (1966)
- 1966: US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966) All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.
Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)
Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969) by returning the focus to "inventiveness" by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.
Suggestion to Combine
In Re Rouffet deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.
- "When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references."
- "[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.
Two important considerations were the focus of Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375.
- A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.
- The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they must be considered by the court.
- This case also considers the concept of enablement which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.