Print

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

[haberbe]

all... quick question

I thought I remembered from a case I read a while back that the way that an inventor comes up with an idea or is inspired to try something is immaterial for obviousness considerations. Does anyone else have this understanding? if so, can someone point me to the authority for this proposition? If not, is this an incorrect understanding of obviousness?

Thanks

[JimIvey]

You might try searching for "flash of genius".  The old rule (really old) was that non-obvious invention required some flash of genius, as in "Eureka!!" (yeah, it's that old).

Whenever I see that topic discussed, the case that ended that law of non-obviousness is cited, teaching that the manner in which the idea came to the inventor is immaterial, whether by flash of genius or industrious labor.

I think that's what you're looking for.

Regards.

[Isaac]

I thought I remembered from a case I read a while back that the way that an inventor comes up with an idea or is inspired to try something is immaterial for obviousness considerations. Does anyone else have this understanding?

The concept is part of 35 USC 103(a). 

"Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."