enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Doctrine of inherency - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_inherency

    In United States patent law, the doctrine of inherency holds that, under certain circumstances, prior art may be relied upon not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what is inherent therein, i.e., what necessarily flows from the express teachings. [1] For a patent claim to be valid, its subject-matter must be novel and non-obvious.

  3. United States patent law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_patent_law

    Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time (usually, 20 years) from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent ...

  4. Non-obviousness in United States patent law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-obviousness_in_United...

    In US patent law, non-obviousness is one of the requirements that an invention must meet to qualify for patentability, codified as a part of Patent Act of 1952 as 35 U.S.C. §103. An invention is not obvious if a " person having ordinary skill in the art " (PHOSITA) would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by ...

  5. All elements test - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_elements_test

    The all elements rule or all limitations rule (often written with a hyphen after "all") is a legal test used in US patent law to determine whether a given reference shows that a patent claim [1] lacks the novelty required to be valid. The rule is also applicable to an obviousness analysis. [2]

  6. Patent Act of 1952 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1952

    § 121 of the Patent Act of 1952 was the first time, when the US Congress addressed the problem of double patenting. Prior to 1952, even when a patent examiner required splitting a patent application into several divisionals, the resulting divisionals were used against each other in courts as grounds for double patenting invalidation. This was ...

  7. Graham v. John Deere Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.

    Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, [1] set forth 14 years earlier in Patent Act of 1952 and codified as 35 U.S.C. § 103. [2]

  8. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_v._Greenwood

    Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851), was a United States Supreme Court decision credited with introducing into United States patent law the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement, [1] as well as stating the applicable legal standard for determining its presence or absence in a claimed invention.

  9. Title 35 of the United States Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United...

    Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections (149 of which are used), in Title 35.