Source: http://milwaukeepatents.com/files/patent_basics.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:10:17+00:00

Document:
A patent operates as a mini-monopoly on a technology. Patent holders have the exclusive right to profit from innovations covered by their patents. They also have the right to keep others from selling a product that has only trivial modifications to the product they've patented and is designed to accomplish the same thing. Society has an interest in promoting technology by rewarding and protecting the investment of the creators. However, an over proliferation of patents can stifle innovation and privatize knowledge that would be of far greater benefit to the world if left in the public domain.
In the fall of 1997, Amazon.com filed the most controversial patent application of this decade. It was entitled "A Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network", but most people just refered to it as the as the "1-Click" patent. It described a now familiar online shopping system where customers entered their credit card number and address just once so that on future visits to the website all it takes is one mouse click to make a purchase. On September 28, 1999, two years and one week after filing the application, Amazon.com was awarded Patent Number 5,960,411 for the 1-Click method.
Twenty-two days later, Amazon.com filed a lawsuit against Barnesandnoble.com, its largest competitor. Amazon wanted to stop Barnesandnoble from using their "Express Lane" feature, which allowed the Barnesandnoble's server to recognize the purchaser and access previously submitted shipping and credit information. Amazon alleged that this feature infringes upon its 1-Click business method patent.
Amazon's controversial patent fueled arguments against overly aggressive patenting practices. One of Amazon's founding programmers, Paul Barton Davis, publicly stated that Amazon.com's early development "relied on the use of tools that could not have been developed if other companies and individuals had taken the same approach to technological innovation that the company is now following." He called Amazon's 1-Click patent "a cynical and ungrateful use of an extremely obvious technology."
Patents can be viewed as a contract between the government and the patent holder. To encourage private entrepreneurs to undertake all of the research, testing, effort and expenditure that accompany any new technology, the government agrees to afford a twenty-year monopoly. After the twenty-year period, the invention enters the public domain, where anyone can freely make, use, sell or profit from it.
Constitutional Basis: To Promote "Useful Arts"
The U.S. Constitution specifically authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of ... useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries." 2 A patent holder can sue in federal court to enforce the rights granted by Congress.
What exactly are these "useful arts" referenced in the Constitution? This term was originally interpreted to include processes, machines and manufactured goods. All of these types of patents are known as utility patents. In the last few decades, patent law has evolved and expanded to include ornamental design patents, business method patents and patents of certain types of plants.
Patents, as useful arts, protect what an invention does, as opposed to how it looks. Copyright, on the other hand, has historically protected the aesthetic aspects of an invention. There used to be a relatively clear line between patent and copyright law. But that line is blurring with the recognition of design patents. Innovators, in many cases, may now choose between copyright and design patent protections.
Processes are a series of useful steps to accomplish a result. They involve some sort of physical or chemical interactions. The popular Scotchgard ® process for treating carpets, furniture and clothing so they're more stain resistant is a process. So are methods for taking the caffeine out of coffee or compressing a file on your computer.
Business Tip: The recent willingness of the courts to grant broad protection to business methods provides new opportunites for businesses to acquire significant protection against competitors.
Business method patents are an important outgrowth of the patentability of a process. A business method can fit within the definition of a process. For example a process for calculating mortgage rates is entitled to patent protections, 5 and so is the Amazon.com 1-Click method.
A machine accomplishes a result through the interaction of its parts, such as an engine. An example of a very simple machine is a yo-yo. It has two interacting movable parts, a string and a plastic body with a groove. Recently the PTO granted U.S. Patent No. 6,468,125 to cover a yo-yo shaped like a spinning top.
An article of manufacture is usually an object without movable parts, such as a chair, a mop or a pen. There's a lot of overlap in the definitions of machines and articles of manufacture, and consequently some leeway in deciding which to categorize your device as.
The number of chemicals either known to scientists or disclosed by existing research is vast. It grows constantly as those engaging in "pure" research publish their discoveries. The number of these chemicals that have known uses of commercial or social value, in contrast, is small. Development of new uses for existing chemicals is thus a major component of practical chemical research. It may take years of unsuccessful testing before a chemical having a desired property is identified, and it may take several years of further testing before a proper and safe method of using that chemical is developed.
Suppose someone uses a hairpin to improve the performance of a car engine. This new use of the hairpin can be patented. The new patent would be limited to that use and prior patented uses would be unaffected. Processes, in particular, don't have to be new to be patented. The Patent Act provides that the term "process" includes a new use of a previously known process.
Einstein wouldn't have been able to patent his formula, E=MC 2 . This formula is simply an idea, a theory about a law of nature and not a specific device or process. Patent law draws a sharp distinction between abstract ideas and specific, useful applications. Ideas, like Einstein's theory of relativity or Newton's law of gravity, are considered unpatentable laws of nature. But inventions applying these theories are patentable.
Overview: The Four Requirements for Utility Patents.
Humans shouldn't be able to take credit for the work of nature. This is the basic principal underlying the statutory requirements for patent protection. The statute is intended to separate ideas and laws of nature from actual useful inventions.
Congress and the courts make occasional, infrequent exceptions, allowing a patent to issue even if one of the requirements isn't completely met. These rare exceptions are limited to situations where the objective of separating man-made innovations from mere applications of naturally occurring phenomena is otherwise met.
A process is a set of steps to achieve an end, and the remaining three categories pretty much represent products that can be brought to market. Machines have moving parts, while articles of manufacture are useful objects like chairs and hairpins. Compositions of matter are chemical inventions and combinations of materials that may come out of labs or are stumbled upon accidentally. New and useful improvements include both upgrades and novel applications of technology in the public domain.
In the advertising sections of health and fitness magazines you can find advertisements for products that are supposed to burn fat, build muscle or add inches to a woman's bust line. Since the ads appear month after month, the products probably turn a profit. None of them, however, qualify for patent protection absent a showing that they're truly useful.
The use of an invention must be specifically disclosed in the patent application. A patent must specifically demonstrate the functioning application of an idea. If this weren't required, the effect would be to grant a patent on an unknown range of applications, rather than restricting it to the particular application which the inventor has perfected. This would be tantamount to allowing patents to encompass ideas rather than proven applications, undermining the intent and structure of the patent system.
To be useful, and invention must have a stated purpose, and must actually work. Fortunately, usefulness is usually the easiest criteria for a patent applicant to meet because most inventions are developed to serve a need. The use can be purely aesthetic, such as waterproof mascara or a fabric that doesn't wrinkle.
What about a process that results in a product that's currently useless, but might be useful in the future? In 1966, the Supreme Court held that "a patent is not a hunting license." 8 The Court considered a patent application for a chemical process that had no discernable utility. The developers argued that because of the importance of ongoing chemical research, they should only have to demonstrate a possible future utility. The majority of the Court rejected this approach as having the potential to too broad a monopoly on ideas. Justice Harlan, writing for the dissent, argued that it was not as important that the process be useful as it was that the process be successful.
A final caveat to the usefulness requirement is that the use must be legitimate. The Patent and Trademark Office will reject applications for products that have only the purpose of deceiving or endangering the public. For example, the Office probably wouldn't issue a patent for counterfeiting money or turning back the miles on an odometer. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits people from patenting atomic weapons.
One of the legally strongest and commercially successful patents of all time is the Polaroid camera patent. Prior to Polaroid, instant imaging simply didn't exist. Consumers had to wait hours, days or even weeks for their photos to be run through a heavily equipped dark room. The debut of the Polaroid meant that you could watch your picture develop in minutes, before your very eyes. The Polaroid camera was clearly a novel invention.
What's covered by prior patents issued prior to the filing date of the present application?
What inventions have been published prior to the date of the application?
What kinds of similar inventions are being publicly used, sold or known by others in the United States?
What kinds of similar inventions are in the public domain?
Has another inventor or manufacturer built or used a similar invention, without having abandoned, suppressed or concealed it?
Non-obviousness would seem to automatically result from novelty, but they're really two distinct requirements. Non-obviousness speaks to the level of creativity.
Anything that's new is, by definition, novel. Non-obviousness is a requirement that the invention be sufficiently creative so that it's an actual contribution to field to which it's introduced. Anything less than an actual inventive contribution doesn't justify the grant of the monopoly conferred by patent protection.
Non-obviousness is decided in the context of "prior art." What has been the practice and scope of knowledge prior to the introduction of the invention? What is the difference between the new invention and previously used devices or processes?
In 1941, the Supreme Court held that a device wasn't patentable because it lacked the "flash of genius" normally associated with a non-obvious invention. 12 The court explained that non-obviousness requires a unique insight, which would not be disclosed by simple research.
The courts also take into account so-called secondary considerations. If a new product takes the market by storm, selling like wild fire, that's a pretty good indication that it's non-obvious.
What prior art does the invention incorporate?
What is the difference between the invention for which the patent is sought from inventions under prior art?
What level of skill do people engaged in the prior art ordinarily possess?
What secondary considerations, such as commercial success of the claimed innovation, justify the grant of the patent?
Amazon.com, Inc., v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (2001).
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Dawson Chemical C. v. Rohm & Haas Co. 448.S. 176 (1980).
Brenner v. Manson, 383. U.S. 519 (1966).
Polaroid Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 USPQ 305 (D.Mass 1985), aff'd 229 USPQ 561 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Cuno Engineering Corp. vs. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 8 (1941).
Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976).
Graham v. John Deer Co., 383 U.S 1 (1966).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.