[Patents] Legal definition of "non-obvious".

[ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es (Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez)]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:35:37PM +1000, Lachlan S. James wrote:

> Is it really a "definition" of what is "non-obvious"?  
> [...]
> A definition of what is non-obvious in the eyes of the court might (off the 
> top of my head) be something like 'that which the hypothetical worker of 
> the relevant field, devoid whatsoever of any imagination and inventive 
> capacity though infinitely knowledgeable of and versed in the prior art and 
> the common knowledge of the relevant field, could never have produced.'

It is not "off the top of your head"; it is quite clear that this is
exactly what the court means.

> But such a definition merely moves the question of what is/is not
> obvious into the mind of this hypothetical worker; it does not help
> us much at all.

My opinion is that although the definition is objective it is not
useful.  It is objective: as soon as there is something inventive,
imaginative or creative you have an "invention", and the right to
obtain a patent. But it is not useful. There are plenty of talented
people in the world. Giving a monopoly to the first engineer that has
a creative idea is not fair when any other creative engineer could
arrive to the same solution.

Ramon