Print

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

[andras22]

There is a patent which covers some motor windings.

I have come up with the generalization of the principle they used (there is an extra parameter to be selected in the design algorithm - this parameter is not recognized by them and it is considered to be 0 by the patent). I can design windings which are not protected by this patent and have about the same properties as the ones protected by this patent. My windings are a little bit better in some aspects and a little bit worse in other aspects, but essentially have the same properties.

Can I patent all the other (similar) windings not covered by their description?

[Wiscagent]

The trivial answer is: if the winding method is novel, not obvious, and useful, then yes, it is patentable.  You are probably best off consulting with a patent agent or a patent attorney, describing your invention, and perhaps ordering a prior art search to get an estimate of what the scope of any potential patent would be.

[andras22]

Lets say that there is a patent that describes gearboxes with some special gear ratios. According to the description of this patent (including in claim 1) all gears will have even number of teeth in every single case. I observe that exactly the same gear ratios can be obtained with almost identical gearboxes which always have odd number of teeth in at least one of the gears. Can the almost identical gearboxes which include odd tooth number gears be patented?

Thanks,
Andras

[Wiscagent]

If a gearbox with an odd number of teeth in the gears would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, then the "invention" would not be patentable.

How to determine whether or not the invention should be considered obvious has been the subject of several appellate court decisions.  The courts have established rules to determine obviousness, but the rules are neither simple to apply nor unambiguous.

[Lightning50]

Very few inventions are actually better in all respects than the prior art. The vast majority are better in some respects and inferior in other respects, like you describe your idea. I don't believe that the invention even needs to be better in any respect to satisfy the usefulness criteria.

[CriterionD]

"better" is a subjective term, as is "useful" to some extent.

For all due purposes, if it is novel it will be assumed useful, provided you are able to state an intended use.  Hopefully it is actually useful and also better in at least some manner - whether that has to do with improved utility, lower production costs or maybe even patentability - or else a patent would serve as a waste of money. 

[horsechute]

It does not have to be better at all, like lightning50 said; obviousness and how well something performs in the relative sense are two seperate issues, and something can perform worse and be perfectly patentable, but if something performs well in, say, the marketplace, or satisfies a long unmet need, etc. you may introduce this information into the determination of obviousness. The discussion above appears to be directed toward machines (electrical or mechanical) where utility is nearly always a given, and a long line of cases indicates (to me) that in this area you are only looking for any quantum of utility; however in the area of biotech, your utililty must be specific, substantial, and credible, which is quite different. Before, the idea of using "some quantum of utility" was essentially applied in chemical cases, and people were using this literally, and saying things like a newly discovered or synthesized protein may be used for things like hair shampoo, which is quite ridiculous, so the Federal Circuit changed things around. You can draw novel structures all day that, without some showing of utility that meets these criteria, would not be patentable. And it does not require the use of actual lab results either, although a friend of mine who is an attorney practicing in the biotech area says it does for pharmaceuticals, though my research of the case law makes me think otherwise. Anyway, at least from my point of view, it is best to seperate the utility requirement from obviousness/novelty considerations, and forget about whether something is better or worse in the relative sense.