Head banger for 103

[screenzzzz]

Regarding a Utility patent (process)

After reading through this (section 103) does anyone know a little more definitively, as to what they talking about is it the concept or the process, What I mean is; are they saying, "such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made" e.g. someone in the rubber industry Had a thought "it would be nice if a ball could float in the air: OR "someone actually came up with a way a thought and process on how to specifically do it OR if a person with ordinary skill would be able to define specifically how to make it"

35 U.S.C. section 103 provides:
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."

Gary

[JimIvey]

They're not talking about the concept or the process.  They're talking about the subject matter recited by the claim in question -- i.e., the specific language of the claim itself.

Does the claim recite "a rubber ball that can float in the air"?  Then, is that obvious?  More than likely, the claim will recite something much more specific than that, and that language would be the thing to be analyzed for obviousness.

Regards.