Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO/Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office, and it is considered to be broader in general.
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The two particularly contentious areas, with numerous reversals of prior legislative and judicial decisions, have been computer-based and biological inventions. [9] [10] The US practice of patentable subject matter is very different from that of the European Patent Office.
One author of the US Patent Act of 1952 stated that patentable subject matter should encompass "anything under the sun that is made by man." [16] At that time, the USPTO and US courts interpreted both "anything" and "made by man" quite broadly. However, the meaning of these terms has been narrowed substantially over the years.
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 ...
The "novelty" of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. It has been urged that novelty is an appropriate consideration under § 101.
The patent laws usually require that, for an invention to be patentable, it must be: Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection (also called "statutory patentable subject-matter") Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new)
In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. [1] As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. [2]
In other words, the paradigm claims on appeal are not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are not directed to subject matter within the four recognized categories of patentable inventions. Therefore, the paradigm claims, claims 24-35, are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least this reason.