Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sharanbr]

Hi,

I am a bit confused on the this aspect in patent.
Who decides whether a patent is useful or not. Does the burden lie on the inventor.
Sometimes the term useful can be also very relative. Just to give an example, the lcd screens
actually have the limitations that one can view the display when they are straight in front.
If they are at an angle then the display cannot be seen. So in the context of the TV, cellphone etc.
that would be a limitation.
Now the same limitation is actually used to the benefit by ATM manufacturers in their machines.
The idea is that only the person operating can see and any other intruder cannot see.
So basically one application's limitation is another application's plus point.

Regards,

[JimIvey]

Usefulness is embodied in 35 USC 101.  Generally, just about everything is "useful."  Most of the controversy current resides around methods and things commonly referred to as "business methods" -- more accurately, methods that don't require a machine or somehow transform matter.

The same people who decide novelty and obviousness determine utility -- the examiner, the appeals board, the courts.

Regards.

[sharanbr]

Actually in most of the research papers (ieee transactions for e.g.), one gives elaborate experiment results to substantiate that what they are claiming (an improvement over existing methods) is indeed true. Even with such detailed results, experts dont find it that easy to come to a conclusion about the usefulness of the approach. Given such a scenario, how can patent office without any elaborate input from author decide if the method if useful.

[JimIvey]

"Useful" means different things in science and in patent law.  As one court put it, "anything under the sun made by man" is useful in the context of patents.  Accordingly, much of the arguing is over other requirements, namely novelty and non-obviousness.

Regards.

[khazzah]

"Useful" means different things in science and in patent law.  As one court put it, "anything under the sun made by man" is useful in the context of patents.  Accordingly, much of the arguing is over other requirements, namely novelty and non-obviousness.

It's true that research papers contain a lot of data "proving" usefulness. But research papers have a different purpose than patents do.
 
As JimIvey points out, "useful" in the patent context has a very specific meaning. "Usefulness" is a problem for very few patent applications -- mostly ones claiming oddball stuff like cold fusion and perpetual motion.

The big issues which plague inventors in their efforts to obtaining a patent are novelty and non-obviousness. Also, to a lesser degree, enablement (how to make and use the invention) and written description (loosely, what did you invent?).

The market will decide whether or not things covered by your patent are useful.

[bartmans]

Usefulness (or utility) also plays a large role in biotechnology, where for being able to get a granted claim on a DNA or protein sequence, you should also state a 'credible, specific and substantial' utility of these compounds (see the utility guidelines training material from the USPTO: http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/utility.pdf).

[TyBontage]

the admins decide who is a mod.
the criteria is you have to be chosen by an admin, and, I suppose, wanting to do it.