Comments on: Analysis: Patent law made for tinkerers? http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Scott G Miller http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/comment-page-1/#comment-14559 Scott G Miller Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:30:29 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/#comment-14559 I have such an invention, but with serious national implications. For me to not act is criminal, but to act deprives me of compensation for creative effort. I must spend money to a forced charity. Hope to hear from an aggressive lawyer interest in representing such a predicament. Sincerely, Scott G Miller I have such an invention, but with serious national implications. For me to not act is criminal, but to act deprives me of compensation for creative effort. I must spend money to a forced charity.
Hope to hear from an aggressive lawyer interest in representing such a predicament.
Sincerely,
Scott G Miller

]]> By: Andrew Oh-Willeke http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/comment-page-1/#comment-10649 Andrew Oh-Willeke Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:42:25 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/#comment-10649 Moore's comment is particularly illuminating, although I think it reaches the wrong conclusion. An obvious invention is one that a skilled person familar with prior art can easily solve once presented with with problem. Thinking of a new problem and then solving it, merely establishes the novelty of the invention, not the invention's non-obviousness. A non-obvious invention is one that a skilled person cannot easily solve once presented with the problem, until they are told the answer to the problem. This makes proof that a problem has been known and studied for a long time, but only now solved, highly relevant, but not an exclusive way of showing that a solution is not obvious. Moore’s comment is particularly illuminating, although I think it reaches the wrong conclusion.

An obvious invention is one that a skilled person familar with prior art can easily solve once presented with with problem. Thinking of a new problem and then solving it, merely establishes the novelty of the invention, not the invention’s non-obviousness.

A non-obvious invention is one that a skilled person cannot easily solve once presented with the problem, until they are told the answer to the problem. This makes proof that a problem has been known and studied for a long time, but only now solved, highly relevant, but not an exclusive way of showing that a solution is not obvious.

]]> By: Rudy Moore http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/comment-page-1/#comment-10648 Rudy Moore Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:15:43 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-patent-law-made-for-tinkerers/#comment-10648 <p>The hypothetical seems like it has an easy answer. First answer, the placement of the garage opener is not obvious to someone who has never had a garage opener eaten by a raccoon. Second answer, if the problem didn't exist previously and no one expected it to be a problem, the the inventor has done something unobvious by thinking of the problem and solution first - no raccoon needed, though it'll make the patent more valuable.</p> <br /> Rudy Moore<br /> UW-Madison The hypothetical seems like it has an easy answer. First answer, the placement of the garage opener is not obvious to someone who has never had a garage opener eaten by a raccoon. Second answer, if the problem didn’t exist previously and no one expected it to be a problem, the the inventor has done something unobvious by thinking of the problem and solution first – no raccoon needed, though it’ll make the patent more valuable.

Rudy Moore
UW-Madison

]]>