|
The patent system was developed as a means
to reward inventions that would be useful for society That is why the utility of
an invention is so important to qualify for the grant of a patent. However, in
order to ensure that the interests of society are not jeopardized, certain
inventions, even though they are new and have a use, have been excluded. There
are certain inventions fulfilling all the criteria of patentable invention such
as novelty, usefulness and inventiveness but they have been excluded from
patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act,1970 which are as follows.
An invention, which is
frivolous or which claims anything that is obviously contrary to well
established natural laws, is not patentable.
If two or more components of an article are
joined to make one single piece, then such an improvement is considered
frivolous and is not eligible to be patented. Here, mere usefulness shall not be
instrumental in obtaining a patent. In fact, anything that is contrary to
natural law, like a proposed machine that gives output without any input, is not
patentable since it will not work.
An invention is not patentable if its primary or intended
use would be contrary to law or morality or injurious to public heath.
The invention, the use of which is contrary
to the law in force or use of which is prohibited, is not patentable. Examples
could be a machine for theft, gambling apparatus or a machine determining the
sex of the child before birth. If the use of the invention will be injurious to
public health, it will not be patentable -like a method of food adulteration.
The mere discovery of a scientific principle or the
formulation of an abstract theory is not patentable.
The discovery of a scientific principle is
not patentable. But when such a principle is applied for the manufacture of an
article, then the process or product becomes patentable. Scientific theory is a
statement about the natural world, like a principle of physics. But, if this
leads to its practical application in terms of manufacture of an article or
substance, then that product may be patentable.
The formulation of an abstract theory is
not patentable on the ground that this does not result in the manufacture of a
product.
There is a difference between discovery and
invention. A discovery only uncovers something that exists already and is not
new. One could discover a plant in the forest, which was not known to a certain
population before but that, does not make it new. An invention on the other hand
results in a new product or a new process.
When unknown properties are found to exist
in a known article, it is a discovery and thus not patentable. But if this
discovery leads to making of a new article or in the development of a new
process, then the article or the process could be patentable.
The mere discovery of any new property or
new use for a known substance or the mere use of a known process, machine or
apparatus does not make it patentable unless such known process results in a new
product or employs at least one new reactant.
The mere discovery of a new property of a
substance will not be a patentable invention. For example, mere discovery of a
new property of a substance such as aspirin for treatment of some other ailment
cannot be considered patentable.
×GenenewsHomeØ
NextØ |
