The definition of "obvious" to me is something I always took in dictionary terms - or rather, what seems to be a "duh" answer or something that seems very likely, very doable and the most probably answer.
But, what stands out most to me about the patent definition of OBVIOUS is what points to non-obviousness. Reviewing my lecture slides and my notes, here are the criteria that came to mind about what obviousness really means.
Understanding what is OBVIOUS, we must look at the criteria for what is NON-OBVIOUS:
- The combination of multiple pieces of prior art
- Does it make sense to combine these two things?
- Is it a new idea?
- EX: Combining the tooth brush + glow stick to make a glow in the dark
- A person having ordinary skills (in the same field) would not have thought of it
- With the same skill set in the same field, an idea that is non-obvious is something that someone with these equivalent skills would have have thought of
- EX: Would the person with the toothbrush invention thought to combine these two for a practical use? The glow in the dark aspect is an extension of the toothbrush and something that others in the field MAY have thought of. But for anyone else not to think of it makes it non-obvious.
Hi Kimberly!
ReplyDeleteI like the organization in this post and the use of examples. Its also interesting the approach you took - namely, defining obviousness by defining non-obviousness. Its pretty unconventional, but worked well. Thanks!
The specific questions you posed as well as the logical organization of them makes it extremely easy for me to figure out whether an idea is obvious or not.
ReplyDelete