Source: http://patentfirmindia.blogspot.com/2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:06:07+00:00

Document:
Non Obviousness is a ground against patentability of an invention defined under 35 U.S.C. §103 of US Patent Law. This is equivalent to lack of inventive step in the invention that renders invention obvious of person skilled in art.
The Flash of Genius Doctrine or Test was a test for patentability used by the United States Federal Courts for over a decade. The doctrine was formalized in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp. (314 U.S. 84 (1941)) which held that the inventive act had to come into the mind of an inventor in a "flash of genius" and not as a result of tinkering. "The new device, however useful it may be, must reveal the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling. If it fails, it has not established its right to a private grant on the public domain." (Id. at 91). This test, which lasted little more than a decade, was most likely an appealing and easy standard for judges and unsophisticated jurors to apply to any given patent dispute when the technology being disputed was beyond their non-scientific acumen. It was eventually rejected by the 1952 patent statute's section 103 standard of non-obviousness: "Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made." Many decades later, the Federal Circuit stated that this portion of section 103 was enacted expressly to overrule the flash of genius test from Cuno (Ryko Manufacturing v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
d) objective evidence of non-obviousness.
Later on, the Federal Circuit in Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang (202 F.3d. 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir., 2000), (Teaching Suggestion Motivation Test) laid down that there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art (itself) to combine elements shown in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious. Thus, in general the critical inquiry is whether there is something in the prior art to suggest the desirability, and thus the obvious nature, of the combination of previously known elements. As almost all inventions are some combination of known elements, the TSM test requires that some suggestion or motivation exists to combine known elements to form a claimed invention. The Federal circuit has made clear that the motivation may be implicit, and may be provided for example by an advantage resulting from the modification. In other words, an explicit prior art teaching or suggestion to make a particular modification is sufficient, but not required for a finding of obviousness.
But the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue in KSR v. Teleflex (2006). The unanimous decision, rendered on April 30, 2007, overturned a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that it "analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit's application of the TSM test. The court held that, while the ideas behind the TSM test and the Graham analysis were not necessarily inconsistent, the true test of non-obviousness is the Graham analysis.
Therefore, it must be established that there was no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of the ordinary skill (the Applicant) to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It should be established that there is neither a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results nor use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way. The claimed invention does not apply any known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Under Indian Laws statutory protections is available to both registered marks as well as unregistered marks. In respect of trademarks Indian law provides both civil as well as criminal remedies for taking action against any infringement of a trademark.
1. Opposition (before the Registrar)- Opposition can only be done after publication of the trademark and within 3 months of date of availability of Journal. One month extension is available if sought before the expiry of 3 months time.
2. Cancellation (before the Registrar as well as Appellate Board)- Cancellation on the ground of non-use for a period of 5 years and 3 months and proof of intention on part of the registered proprietor not to use the trademark at the filing date and non-use till the cancellation petition.
Under common laws, the proprietor of a trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, may sue for passing off in respect of any trade mark used by defendant that is identical with or deceptively similar to his trade mark. The registered proprietor also has the remedy to take infringement action.
• Falsification of entries in the Register.
The complaint for any of the above offences can be made/filed before the Magistrate within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is committed.
Besides confiscation of goods and machinery, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also provides for imprisonment starting from 6 months to 3 years for the offences or fine or both.
Indian Trademarks law allows express examination of the trademark application on filing of additional official fee along with a declaration stating the reason for such request. Within 3 months from the date of request the Registrar shall issue an Examination report.
After the trademark application has been provisionally accepted by the Registrar of the Trademarks, the application shall be advertised in the Indian Trademarks Journal inviting opposition from public to the trademark.
After publication of the trademark in the Indian Trademarks Journal, the trade mark remains open to opposition by public for a period of 3 months, further extendable for a period of 1 month upon prior request.
On filing of notice of opposition the application shall not proceed towards registration until the opposition is set aside.
If there is no opposition against the registration of the trademark application or the opposition proceedings have been decided in favour of the Applicant, the Trade Marks Registry shall accept the trademark and issue a registration certificate to that effect.
The duration of registration of a trademark is 10 years from the date of filing of application in India and is further renewable for every 10 years thereafter.
Power of authority has to be stamped as per Indian Stamps Act and preferably should be filed within one month from date of filing. Notarisation or legalisation is not mandatory.
Under Indian trademarks law, the specification of goods or services must be within 500 characters. In event the description exceeds 500 words prescribed fee must be paid for each additional character along with an application to that effect.
Trademark Applications in India can be classified under two categories depending upon their priority claim.
In case of conventional trademark application, certified copy of the priority document has to be filed within 2 months from the date of filing of application in India.
Besides above trademark applications, there are also certification trademarks and collective trademarks that are registrable in India.
There are five trademark registries in India located at New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata and depending upon territorial jurisdiction where the Applicant is located, the application has to be filed. For foreign applicant the application has to be filed before trademark registry within whose territorial jurisdiction the agent/ attorney for applicant is located.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services. The characteristic includes their shape (3 dimensional), packaging, colour, graphic design or even the smell of the product.
The concept of trade dress was first brought in under the Trademarks Act, 1999 under the definition of ‘Mark’ which replaced the previous Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
A ‘Mark’ includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name (including abbreviations), signature, word, letter, numerals, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours and any combination thereof. India allows registration in respect of goods as well as service marks, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours.
(a) The knowledge or recognition of the alleged well known mark in the relevant section of the public including knowledge obtained as a result of promotion of the trademark.
b) The duration, extent and geographical area of any use for that trademark.
c) The duration, extent and geographical area for any promotion of the trademark including advertising or publicity and presentation at fairs or exhibition of the goods or services in which the trademark appears.
(d) The duration and geographical area of any registration of any publication for registration of that trademark under this Act to the extent that they reflect the use or recognition of that trademark.
(e) The record of successful enforcements of the rights in that trademark, in particular the extent to which the trademark has been recognized as a well known trademark by any Court or Registrar under that record.
Whereas a trademark has been determined to be well known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or Registrar, the Registrar shall consider that trademark as a well known trademark for registration under this Act.
“Relevant section of Public” may be actual or potential consumers of, persons involved in channels of distribution of or business circles dealing with the type of goods or services to which the mark is applied.
The Registrar is not required to consider the following facts while determining a well known trademark.
c) The application for registration of the Trademark has been filed in India.
e) The trademark is well known to the public at large in India.
(ii) It must not be deceptive.
Therefore while selecting a trademark, words that are directly descriptive of the goods, common surnames or geographical names should be avoided as these confer weaker protection to the proprietor even if registered.
Prima facie, a word having a direct reference to the character or quality of goods is not registrable. However it is registrable, if it has acquired distinctiveness through long and continuous use. Under Indian Trademarks law more significance has been given to “use” of the mark than “filing of application towards registration”.
A ‘Trademark’ means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. It also denotes the origin of goods and carries goodwill of the business in respect of which it is used.
Further a single multiclass application can be filed in India in respect of all the international classes.
Indian Trademark Law has been codified in conformity with the International Trademark Law and is about to undergo an amendment to be at par International Trademark Law. India has also signed Madrid Protocol that will allow Foreign Applicants to file an International Application designating India (once notification is issued in this regard).
Patent infringement proceedings can only be initiated after Grant of patent in India but it may include claim retrospectively from the date of publication of Patent in Indian Patent Journal subject to law of limitation. Under the Limitation law does not allow action/suits in respect of matter where cause of action had arisen more than three years from the date of suit.
All persons or incorporations directly or indirectly involved in any of the above stages may be held liable for infringement.
A suit for infringement has to be filed in a District court or High court (depending upon pecuniary jurisdiction) within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen. However, as soon as a counter claim for revocation of patent is filed against the suit for infringement of patent, only high court has the jurisdiction of entertain the matter and the matter has to be transferred to High Court for decision.
The onus of establishing the infringement is on the plaintiff. However, in case of patent involving a process for obtaining a product where the plaintiff first establishes that the products obtained are identical, the court may shift onus on the defendant.
The Court may also allow interim injunction against the infringer.
5. For Patent in respect of Medicine or drug, for its own use of Govt. of India, for distribution in Govt. Dispensary and hospitals or by gazette notifications to other dispensaries, hospitals and medical institutions.
(b) The patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable price.
(c) The invention is not worked commercially to fullest extent in territory of India.
(v) Commercial working of the patented invention in India being hindered or prevented by import of the patented articles from abroad.
Grant of Compulsory license is for the remaining term of patent unless a shorter period looks reasonable and required in case to the Controller.
While granting the license the Controller shall take into account the nature of invention, time elapsed, ability of applicant, his efforts for obtaining a license on reasonable terms. While granting a compulsory license reasonable royalty is also paid to the patentee having regard to nature of Invention, its utility, expenses incurred in maintaining patent grant in India and other factors.
Normally request for grant of Compulsory License is published and Patentee and other interested persons are afforded reasonable opportunity to defend the grant. But in case of national emergency and other urgent condition in public interest the Controller may first grant the License and then notify the Patentee and other interested persons.
Under special circumstances of medical emergency supported by notification by foreign country in this regard controller may grant compulsory license to meet the medical emergency in that country.
Patentee or his licensee in India is required to file a statement as to working of patent in India as to extent to which the invention has been commercially worked in India on FORM 27. Ordinarily the statement in respect of a calendar year (from January to December) has to be filed by next March 31 of calendar year. But, if the information is required by the Controller specifically it has to be supplied within 2 months of such requisition unless an extension has been sought as well as provided by the Controller.
9. Power of authority in favour of Indian Patent Attorney/ agent, to be stamped in India (legalisation/ notarisation not necessary) preferably to be filed within a month or to be filed mandatorily within 3 months if requisitioned by Controller otherwise the application shall not proceed towards publication.
8. Power of authority in favour of Indian Patent Attorney/ agent, to be stamped in India (legalisation/ notarisation not necessary) preferably to be filed within a month or to be filed mandatorily within 3 months if requisitioned by Controller otherwise the application shall not proceed towards publication.
7. Power of authority in favour of Indian Patent Attorney/ agent, to be stamped in India (legalisation/ notarisation not necessary) preferably to be filed within a month.
Ordinary patent application in India can be filed along with a provisional or complete specification. It is further distinguishable from other patents that it does not claim any priority from any other application.
Convention Patent Application claims priority from a convention application and has to be filed in India within 12 months from date of priority and has to be accompanied by a complete specification.
PCT national phase patent application has to be filed in India after filing of PCT application in WIPO and within 31 months from the date of priority and has to be accompanied by a complete specification.
Specification is a technical disclosure statement that describes the whole invention that the applicant is claiming. It begins with title of the invention and contains field of invention, prior art, objective of invention, summary of invention, detailed description of the invention, drawings, claims and abstract containing summary of the invention. It also enables a person ordinarily skilled in the art to understand and perform the invention.
(i) Provisional: It ordinarily contains the brief disclosure of the invention and is filed to claim the priority for the invention while the complete specification is developed and the patent application is prepared and filed. It does not contain claims and have to be followed by a complete specification within 12 months.
(ii) Complete: It describes the whole invention that the applicant is claiming. It begins with title of the invention and contains field of invention, prior art, objective of invention, summary of invention, detailed description of the invention, drawings, claims and abstract containing summary of the invention.
Patent grants statutory monopolistic rights to Patentee in with respect of an invention. Patent rights encourage research and development by providing exclusive rights to patentees to commercially make use of the inventions as well as restrain others from using the same without permission of the Patentee. Patent rights act as economic incentives to patentee in lieu of disclosure of invention to public so that the same could be used for further scientific and technological research and development. Patents being statutory rights are enforceable only within the territorial jurisdiction of the country/state where they have been granted. It is possible to claim priority from an application filed in a country/ state and file Conventional or PCT Application on basis of said application.
For the purpose of the Patents, invention means a “new product or process” involving an “inventive step” and “capable of industrial application”. The invention must be novel. The "Inventive step must involve some technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or have economic significance or both and hence making the invention not obvious to the person skilled in the art. Capable of industrial application means that the invention must be capable of being made or used in an Industry.
Not all inventions are Patentable. For an invention to be patentable, it must be new, useful and non-obvious and must pass through certain parameters prescribed by Patent Act for Patent rights in India. Section 3 of the Indian Patent Act provides for Inventions that are not considered patentable.
d. the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.
Section 4 also bars invention relating to atomic energy from patentability.
Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction adjudicated on a Patent dispute titled J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus Asst. Controller of Patents & Design. & Ors..
The Supreme Court granted the leave and directed the High Court to adjudicate the matter in interest of justice for only two appeals of such kind were pending in the High Courts. The special circumstances arises because of dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in the Patent Law between "opposition to the pre-grant" and "opposition to the post-grant of patent" and "appeals against order passed by Controller of Patents under pre Grant or post grant opposition".
It would be wise to state the brief facts of the matter in tabular form for better understating of the matter.
26.03.1999 Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. March 26, 1999 that provides for appeal to High Court against orders passed by the Controller of Patents. At that time only provision/remedy to oppose the grant of patent was pre grant opposition.
25.06.2002 Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 was promulgated by Legislature and to hear appeals against orders passed by the Controller Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was made the Appellate Board for the purposes of Patent Act (under Section 116) and under Section 117A provision was made that appeal against order of Controller under Section 25 (pre Grant Opposition) and other provisions shall lie only in the Appellant Board. But Section 116 and 117A were not notified and brought into force. Still at that time only provision to oppose the grant of patent was pre grant opposition under Section 25 and same brought into force vide Notification dated 20.5.2003.
04.04.2005 The Legislature enacted the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.e.f. 01.101.2005 but not all provisions were simultaneously brought into force. Only certain sections of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 were brought into force. Provisions for Pre Grant as well as Post Grant Opposition were made. But Section 117A was amended and expression Section "25" was replaced with Section 25(4),effectively meaning that appeal shall lie against order passed under Section 25(4) i.e. order passed by Opposition Board in Post Grant Patent. The Legislature allowed appeals only against decision passed by the Controller in a Post Grant Opposition not pre Grant Opposition. Though the provisions of Section 25 were brought into effect, but the provisions of Section 116 and 117A were not brought into effect.
21.03.2005 Pre-grant opposition was filed under Section 25(1) of the Patent Act. It is to be noted that Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted only after filing of this opposition on 04.04.2005 but was brought into effect from 01.01.2005. Therefore only provision available for opposition on such date was under the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002.
23.08.2006 Pre Grant Opposition was rejected by the Controller of Patents. And as the Section 116 and 117A was not enacted on such date only remedy was to file Appeal under the provisions of Section 116 of Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002 that provides for filing the appeal before the High Court.
19.10.2006 Appeal filed before the High Court against the order passed by the Controller of Patents in the patent opposition being FAO no. 292/2006 & 293/2006.
03.04.2007 Provisions of Section 117G, that called for transfer of all pending proceeding against any order or decision of Controller and all cases pertaining to revocation other than on a counter claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any High Court to the Appellate Board was brought into effect by notification by the Legislature. The Appellate Board may proceed with the matter either de novo or from the stage it was so transferred.
In words of Hon'ble Supreme Court "This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005."
The enactment of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, introduced for the first time a dichotomy in the Patent Law between "opposition to the pre-grant" and "opposition to the post-grant of patent" and also as to "appeal" that may be preferred against any orders that may be passed by the Controller of Patents in opposition proceedings. No doubt, the Amendment Act of 2005 brought major structural change in the Indian Patent Law as per India's Obligation under WTO/GATT. As per the amendment the appeals against orders passed under the post-grant opposition by the Controller shall lie before the Appellate Board and not to the High Court. But the enabling provision i.e. Section 117A was not brought into force till April 2, 2007. Therefore, appeal if any has to be preferred before the High Court under Section 116 of the Patent (Amendment) Act, 1999.
Though the provisions for an appellate forum to hear appeals against order passed by the Controller of Patents were enacted by legislature in 2002, the Govt was not able to start functioning of the Appellate Tribunal till April 2007 and hence Section 116 and 117A were not brought into force.
The Legislature intended to provide for only one statutory appeal against order passed by the Controller that too in a Post Grant Opposition to the Appellate Board but by not bringing Amending Section 61 into force till April 02, 2007, appeals filed during the interregnum i.e. between 01.01.2005 to 01.04.2007, as in this case, became vulnerable and liable to be dismissed as misconceived as contended by the appellant before Supreme Court.
Supreme Court observed "quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specific future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. At times provision is made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act."
"An Act cannot be said to commence or to be in force unless it is brought into operation by legislative enactment or by the exercise of authority by a delegate empowered to bring it into operation."
The Court while applying the above tests to the present case found that for the first time a dichotomy was introduced in the Patent Law by providing vide Section 25(1) for "opposition to pre-grant" and vide Section 25 (2) for "opposition to post-grant" of paten under the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Earlier, there was no "post-grant opposition" and the only provision of challenge was a "pre-grant" challenge under Section 25 (1). By Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, under Section 25(2) right is granted to an "aggrieved person" to challenge the patent even after its grant and the grounds of challenge are identical to Section 25(1) of the Act. Therefore giving a right after grant but limiting the right to only an "aggrieved person" and fixing the limitation period to one year after grant.
"This is where the legislative intent got defeated during the interregnum."
During that period only the Respondent filed appeals against the orders rejecting the Pre Grant Oppositions by Controller of Patents being FAO No. 292/06 and 293/06 before the High Court under Section 116 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 , as it stood on date of filing of appeal i.e. October 19,2006". On the date of filing of appeal, the amended Section 117A, suggested by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, was not brought into force, therefore, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 prevailed under which an appeal lay before the High Court.
The Supreme Court held "Taking into account the complexities involved in this case, on account of a hiatus created by reason of the law not being brought into force in time, we are of the view that the first appeals, filed by respondent no.3 in the High Court being FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06, would remain in the High Court. The said appeals would be heard and disposed of by the High Court in accordance with law under Section 116 of the said 1970 Act as it stood on 19.10.06. The High Court will hear and decide the validity of the Order passed by the Controller dated 23.8.06 rejecting "pre-grant opposition" filed by respondent no.3. We are informed that there are hardly one or two matters of this nature which are pending.
Therefore, we are of the view that respondent no.3 cannot be let without remedy. In the special circumstances of this case, particularly when after 2.4.07 appeals against orders rejecting "pre-grant opposition" are not maintainable and particularly when FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 were filed by respondent no.3 prior to 2.4.07 under the old law, we are of the view that these two appeals shall be heard and decided by the High Court in accordance with law. The Appellate Board after 2.4.07 is entitled to hear appeals only arising from orders passed by the Controller under Section 25(4), i.e., in cases of orders passed in "post-grant opposition". Therefore, there is no point in transferring the pending FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 to the Appellate Board which has no authority to decide matters concerning "pre-grant opposition". Moreover, it may be noted that even Section 117G, which refers to transfer of pending proceedings to the Appellate Board, is also brought into force vide Notification dated 3.4.07. Keeping in mind the peculiar nature of the problem in hand, we are of the view that ends of justice would be subserved if the High Court is directed to hear and decide the appeals bearing FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 in accordance with law as it then stood, i.e., under Section 116 under Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 against Orders passed by the Controller in "pre-grant opposition" proceedings.
The provision along with ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in GSK case concerning the Exclusive marketing rights (GSK Case) made amply clear that where any enactment is repealed, it shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, unless, a different intention appears.
Applying the same ratio in the present matter, though the rights were accrued to respondent before the provisions of Section 116 as envisaged under Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted, but the provisions of Section 117A made very clear that intention of legislature is different i.e. no appeal shall lie against any order passed by Controller of Patents in Pre Grant Oppositions.
The pendency of only very few such appeals against pre grant orders during the interregnum made the Hon'ble Supreme Court to keep the matter with the High Court. Otherwise, the interpretation of "appealable orders" under 117A read with 117G might have settled the position of law as to what about the provisions against which right to appeal is taken away subsequently.
Author is an Advocate and Patent and Trademark Attorney with Aswal Associates, Attorneys at law & Intellectual property, New Delhi, India and can be reached at sudhir@aswal.com or www.aswal.com. Author is a member of APAA, Delhi Bar Council, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Bar Association.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same. Therefore the practice of the different patent office differs from each other.
Under Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 56 of the European Patent Convention, European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia involve an inventive step, that is, the invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. For assessment of the inventive step the European Patents Office follows the “Problem solution approach”.
Examining whether or not the claimed solution to the objective technical problem is obvious for the skilled person in view of the state of the art in general.
Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would (not simply could) have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves?
If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step.
The point is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention by adapting or modifying the closest prior art, but whether he would have done so because the prior art incited him to do so in the hope of solving the objective technical problem or in expectation of some improvement or advantage. This must have been the case for the skilled person before the filing or priority date valid for the claim under examination.
Deciding whether those differences, viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention, constituted steps which would have been obvious to the skilled man or whether they required any degree of invention.
whether the claimed invention has any advantageous effect compared to the prior art.
Until recently Korean courts used to mechanically judge inventive step based on determination of substantial identicalness of purpose, construction and effect of the claimed invention and the prior art, and were silent on the specific standard for determination of inventive step.
However, recently on September 06, 2007 ([Supreme Court Ruling of 2005 HU 3284) for the first time Supreme Court suggested a specific standard for determining inventive step, which is different from the precedents. The Korean Supreme Court took a different approach in its interpretation of inventive step and ruled that inventive step should be denied when there is some suggestion or motivation to reach the claimed invention by combination or aggregation of the feature in the prior art or when the court can recognize that a person ordinary skilled in the art can easily come to the claimed invention by combination or aggregation of feature in the prior art in view of the level of technology, common general knowledge in the art, technical problem, progress trend of technology and needs in the pertinent technical field at the time of filing patent application.
In Korea, the manner in which an invention was made (flash of genius) generally cannot be used to deny inventive step. Many Court rulings have admitted inventive step when they recognized difficulty in construction of the invention. Therefore, assertion on presence of flash of creative genius in the invention would be supportive for inventive step.
In Korea, commercial success alone cannot be regarded as indicative of inventive step. However, commercial success can be supplementary evidence to strengthen the argument of inventive step when it coupled with other evidence for inventive step.
Through several rulings such as Supreme Court Ruling of 94 HU 1817 (Nov. 28, 1995) and Patent Court ruling of 2002 HEO 8424 (Sep. 4, 2003), Korean courts took into account the commercial success as affirmative evidence supporting inventive step of the invention when the applicant proved that his/her commercial success has been derived from the technical feature of the claimed invention, not from marketing skill or advertisement.
However, the Supreme Court clearly takes up the position that inventive step cannot be recognized only with commercial success itself (Supreme Court Ruling of 2004 HU 3546 (Nov. 10, 2005).
The Korean Patent Examination Guideline (KPTG) prohibit hindsight reasoning in determining inventive step of an invention and recently the Korean Supreme Court has also clearly declared that hindsight reasoning should be prohibited in judgment on inventive step [Supreme Court Ruling of 2006 HU 138 (Aug. 24, 2007)].
Grasping the claimed invention and the cited invention (one or more cited inventions). In this case, the technical matter, which can be derived by taking the common technical knowledge into consideration, can be used for grasping the cited invention.
Selecting one cited invention (primary cited invention) which is most suitable for formulating and comparing the claimed invention with such cited invention and then clarifying the identicalness and the difference in technical elements.
Evaluating whether any reasoning for negating the inventive step of claimed invention can be formulated based on the content of the primary cited invention and other secondary cited invention(s) (including the well-known technique and conventional technique).
- It is evaluated whether or not the difference is mere selection of optimum materials in the cited invention, or mere design modification, or mere use of the well-known technique and conventional technique, and the like.
- It is evaluated whether or not there is any motivation which can be found in the cited invention for leading to the difference.
- It is evaluated whether or not the specification discloses any advantageous effect based on the difference as compared with the cited invention. The proof of any advantageous effect is very useful for asserting the inventive step.
Even if there is apparently a close relationship in the technical fields, common subject to be attained and common function/operation between the claimed invention and the cited invention, but if the cited references have a description which could negate the reasoning to combine these references, then the inventive step of the claimed invention may be positively evaluated.
Section 18(1)(b) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) requires that an invention involve an 'inventive step', and Section 45(1)(c) requires inventive step to be considered during examination.
Section 7(2) provides that an invention is taken to involve an inventive step 'unless the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art' in the light of 'common general knowledge' in Australia and such other prior art information as may be added to that common general knowledge, as before the invention's priority date. There is thus only a limited prior art database available for an inventive step assessment - not every prior art document can be used.
For determination of the inventive step it is necessary to construct a hypothetical person skilled in that relevant art and obtain an appreciation of the common general knowledge of such a person. That hypothetical person's knowledge will then be used as a standard in evaluating whether the invention is obvious in the light of this knowledge or involves an inventive step.
"Would the notional research group at the relevant date in all the circumstances ... directly be led as a matter of course to try [the invention claimed] in the expectation that it might well produce [a useful desired result}.
" ... the question of obviousness is probably best tested, if this be possible, by the guidance given by contemporaneous events .... If an invention has resulted in the solution of a problem which has been troubling industry for years and achieves immediate success upon its introduction, then the suggestion after the event that the step was obvious inevitably rings a little hollow.
"When once it has been found ... that the problem had waited solution for many years, and that the device is in fact novel and superior to what had gone before, and has been widely used, and used in preference to alternative devices, it is ... practically impossible to say that there is not present that scintilla of invention necessary to support the patent .... No evidence is more cogent of the success of the invention than that the defendants simply copied it and made profits by making and selling the products.
If the work undertaken by the inventor in order to produce the invention was particularly complex, and not readily carried out, that is an indication that it was not a matter of routine. In such cases the invention would not be obvious.
"The tracing of a course of action which was complex and detailed, as well as laborious, with a good deal of trial and error, with dead ends and the retracing of steps is not the taking of routine steps to which the hypothetical formulator was taken as a matter of course.
"Secondary evidence, such as commercial success... has a role to play in a case concerning inventive step... An Australian court should be slow to ignore secondary evidence or to rely on its own assumed technical expertise to reach conclusions contrary to such evidence. Australian courts have long recognised that the importance of such evidence and its weight will vary from case to case; it will not necessarily be determinative."
This case was appealed and, Australian High Court in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd (2002) 56 IPR 248 and the Aickin J. held that in relation to the process of recreating the prior art, the misuse of hindsight is most common. Once a novel idea, object, process or combination has been published it will often be possible to work backwards to identify the integers which comprise the claimed invention scattered among the prior documents held in libraries. Such a process was held by the High Court not to demonstrate a lack of inventiveness.
An approach used by the courts in HPM Industries Pty Ltd v Gerard Industries Ltd, 98 CLR 424 at page 437 to avoid this problem is the "problem-solution" approach.
"If the invention were novel it would nevertheless fail for want of subject matter if in the light of what was common general knowledge in the particular art, it lacked inventive ingenuity because the solution would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art who set out to solve the problem. "
The "problem-solution approach is based on the question of whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to the hypothetical skilled addressee when faced with a particular problem. The frame work of the "problem-solution" approach inherently embodies what happens in practice and is regarded by the Patent Office as covering the statutory framework. Given this, Australian Patent Examiners are instructed during examination to not take any inventive step objections without using the "problem-solution" approach and formulating a problem from the specification itself.
In general terms, it has been the dangers posed by hindsight analysis that have caused Australian courts to stress that there need only be a 'scintilla of invention' for a particular step not to be obvious, and that the simplicity of an idea does not prevent it from being inventive.
Broadly the interpretation of obviousness or lack on inventive step is similar, the only difference in approach of the particular Patent office. In India lack of any judgment by the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter leaves the interpretation of obviousness to practice of Indian patent office. In absence of authorities the interpretation varies from Examiner to Examiner and involves use of discretionary power.

References: §103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §103