Print

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

[dayzman]

Hi,

Is obviousness defined in respect to the problem that the invention attempts to solve or is it an open, general concept? For example, a Phosita may not be motivated to solve a particular problem using current technology. If an invention solves a novel problem using ordinary, current technology, will it still be obvious?

Thanks

[JimIvey]

If I understand correctly, you're wondering if the motivation that makes the invention obvious must be for solving the problem addressed the claimed invention.

Let me try to come up with an illustrative analogy....  Suppose your invention is to improve fuel efficiency of a car.  The motivation in the prior art is to make the car cheaper to manufacture (and is shown to be known at the time the invention was made, not just made up by the examiner). 

I think that suffices.  I don't think it must be shown that the motivation for deviating slightly from the prior art (e.g., combining references) is that of better fuel efficiency.

Regards.

[dayzman]

That's a good example, but what I meant is slightly different. I'm wondering whether using current technologies to solve a novel problem is patentable. Or even, to solve a problem with novel implications. For example, using current technologies to make the 4 wheels of a car turn 90 degrees so that the driver can park the car in perpendicular to the parking bay.

[JimIvey]

Ah, I see.

New and non-obvious uses of known things are patentable.

Perhaps also related to your perpendicular parking car:  New and non-obvious combinations of known things are patentable.

Regards.