Home
> Investigators > Patent
Information > Identifying Patentable Inventions
For an idea
to be patentable, it must consist of statutory subject matter. United
States patent law permits the granting of a patent on the following
statutory subject matter: · A process, such as a method of
applying a vapor barrier for silicon materials · A machine,
such as a new instrument to deposit uniform layers of metallic compounds
· An article of manufacture, such as an assay kit for an
infectious disease or class of diseases · A composition of
matter, such as a new molecule (characterized by amino acid sequence
or base-pairs) or a new chemical compound · New and useful
improvements of the above · Any distinct and new variety
of plant which is asexually reproduced · Any new, original,
and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
If an idea fits into one of the previous categories, United States
patent law also requires that the invention be: · New or
Novel: The invention must be demonstrably different from publicly
available ideas, inventions, or products (so-called "prior
art"). This does not mean that every aspect of an invention
must be novel. For example, new uses of known processes, machines,
compositions of matter and materials are patentable. Incremental
improvements on known processes may also be patentable. ·
Useful: The invention must have some application or utility or be
an improvement over existing products and/or techniques. ·
Non-Obvious: The invention cannot be obvious to a person of "ordinary
skill" in the field; non-obviousness usually is demonstrated
by showing that practicing the invention yields surprising, unexpected
results.
Each of these
three criteria is open to interpretation. Establishing novelty and/or
usefulness often relies on arbitrary value judgments. For example,
it may not be clear to the PTO that a new gene-sequencing instrument
is "demonstrably different" from other existing models,
or that the use of a new hybridoma for narrow research purposes
is sufficiently significant to be called a "useful" improvement
over existing techniques.
Despite the
possible variety of definitions of novelty and usefulness, the concept
of "non-obviousness" is the most complex of these three
patentability requirements. It is subject to broad and often inexact
interpretation. For example, it might be argued that a new method
of controlling protein production in bacteria is obvious in the
face of prior art because it relies on a collection of well-known,
existing and proven concepts. Conversely, one could argue the same
method is not obvious because certain specific elements of the method
yield surprising, unexpected results. Judging what is obvious to
one of "ordinary skill" in an art is rarely straightforward,
especially in technologically complex and rapidly changing fields.
The three criteria
of novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness generally are the focal
points of the PTO's evaluation of patent applications. Obviousness
is the reason most frequently cited by patent examiners as to why
an invention is not patentable.
Finally, patent
law states that inventions may be patented if they have been reduced
to practice, even if a physical embodiment of the invention has
not been realized ("constructive" reduction to practice,
as described in the preceding section). Therefore, some extrapolation
about an inventive concept can be included in a patent application.
The extent of
permissible extrapolation, however, can be the subject of dispute
with the PTO. For example, an invention, which claims a broad class
of chemical compounds, is rarely granted a patent, unless evidence
is presented that several different representative members of the
class have actually been made. A claim even to a single new compound
usually must include a detailed description of its actual synthesis
in order to receive patent protection. In the case of machines or
mechanical devices, the requirements of the PTO are much less strict.
To assist you
on determining if your invention may be patentable, use the
Guidelines for Patent Filing.
.
|