|
Invention as a human
activity is much older than the concept of intellectual property.Of late,the
concept of “inventiveness ” has come under much discussion with the rate at
which patents are being granted all over the world.
Inventiveness in
simple terms is defined as the power of creative imagination while a more
technical definition for inventiveness would be its not being obvious to a
person skilled in the technological field of the invention at the time an
invention is made.
Scientists and legal
experts have been racking their brains to define this term while granting
patents. But often the nuances are ignored through oversight which results in
turning out patents which are legally incorrect and which serve to override the
efforts and utility of the pre-existing patents.Such has been the case in the US
where US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has been granting patents
incessantly till it decided to put a stop to this process.The rapid increase in
patenting in the last decade or so is also indicative of a shift in how
organisations do research.
The recent landmark
judgement by the US Supreme Court in KSR vs.Teleflex case, has come at the right
time to take care of the situation in a bid to redefine
inventiveness/obviousness which is one of the core issues of patenting.
This patent case
involves computerised adjustable gas pedals instead of a manual pedal. In a
conventional automobile,a driver presses the gas pedal to control the quantity
of fuel to be delivered to the engine while in the new one there is a
computerised pedal for controlling fuel supply to the engine of an automobile.
This advancement first
of all is incremental and the type of pedal is apparently no new invention as it
points to the same use of a known art.The courts in the US have held for many
years that the requirement of inventiveness is not satisfied if there is no
change in the respective functions.
Defining
obviousness
In its recent decision
in KSR v.Teleflex ,the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected the rigid
application of the previous "teaching,suggestion,motivation"test (TSM test as
used in Graham ’s case,see box)and has clarified confusions prevailing in regard
to non-obviousness of an invention with new inputs to look at this issue. The US
Supreme Court said that when a court transforms the general principle into a
rigid rule (for eg,TSM rule),it limits the obviousness inquiry.A vested interest
in patent law and the ease of obtaining patents are at the centre of the case.
The requirement for
inventiveness was already there in the patent laws created in the US in 1952.The
law states that a patent shall not be granted 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 made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
GenenewsHome
Next |
