Source: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/patents/Patents1/Utility.asp
Timestamp: 2013-12-11 10:34:14
Document Index: 56012245

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§102', '§103', '§101', '§102', '§102', '§122', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§103', '§103', '§103', '§103']

The language in §101 permitting for patents of “new and useful” inventions means that in order to be patentable, an invention must have two elements: (i) utility, (ii) novelty. §102 goes on to define novelty, and §103 imposes a third required element: nonobviousness. Utility
We can think of the utility requirement as one which demands the proper response to three questions: Does the invention do anything?
The last of these questions seems to have become irrelevant in recent years, and so long as the patent serves some legal utility, this requirement is met. See Hornbook at 316-317. The other questions, however, remain at the heart of the utility requirement. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not self-evident in some cases.
The patent at issue was for “a post-mix beverage dispenser that is designed to look like a pre-mix beverage dispenser [and] simulates the appearance of the dispensed beverage and is resistant to bacterial growth.” Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In defending the infringement suit, Orange Bang claimed that the patent held by Juicy Whip was invalid, as the invention lacked utility. The lower court agreed that “the invention lacked utility because its purpose was to increase sales by deception, i.e., through imitation of another product.” Juicy Whip at 1366. However, holding that the “threshold of utility is not high,” and that to lack utility “the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result,” the Federal Circuit Court found that the Juicy Whip invention met the utility requirement of §101. Juicy Whip at 1366 (citations omitted).
§102(a) bars patents on inventions “known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.”
§102(e) bars patents on inventions for which a patent application had been filed under §122(b) or for which a patent had been granted prior to the invention at issue.
§102(g) bars patents on inventions by previous inventors when the prior invention was not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed.
In short, (i) a patent, (ii) a patent application, or (iii) an invention in use or known of in the United States, which pre-dates the applicant’s invention, prevents the applicant from meeting the novelty requirement.
By operating in this way, §102(b) is intended to: Protect the public where extended public use of the invention, prior to applying for a patent, has led people to believe that the invention is available to all.
Example: In January of 1987 Joe invents a useful and novel new cup holder. By the end of the year he is producing the holder in large quantities and selling them to national chain stores. In 1991, Amanda learns that Joe does not hold a patent on the holder and begins manufacturing the same item. In order to begin production, Amanda must take out a second mortgage on her home. With the profits she expects to earn, however, paying back her debt should not be a problem. If Joe is now free to receive a patent and prevent Amanda from producing the cup holders, an injustice would be done to Amanda solely due to Joe’s unreasonable delay in seeking his statutory monopoly.
But if patent law is to continue to encourage innovation, the inventor’s interests must also be considered. While the one year time limit in §102(b) might be somewhat arbitrary, it would be impossible to establish a set period of time which would be fair in all cases, and granting inventors a year to “tweak” their inventions seems to be a good compromise. Example: Amanda is not the only one who likes Joe’s idea, and in July of 1987 Wendy begins making cup holders identical to Joe’s. The §102(b) bar will not prevent Joe from receiving his patent if he applies later that same year. Forcing Joe to apply for a patent immediately after inventing his product is not the best way to encourage innovations of good quality. Nonobviousness
Just like the statutory bars, it would be easy to accidentally conflate nonobviousness and novelty. Under §103(a), no patent will issue if “the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art….” In other words, if the invention would be obvious to anyone involved in the same area as the inventor, there can be no statutory monopoly granted in the form of a patent.
Most would agree that one of the most important cases on nonobviousness is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1966). See Hornbook at 377–380; Nutshell at 74, 80. In John Deere three cases were combined (as often happens with the Supreme Court) in which the nonobviousness requirement of §103 was in dispute. The John Deere Court does a fine job of discussing the history of patent law, and ultimately (at pp. 14-15) holds that the rule originally formulated in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851) was codified by §103. In Hotchkiss, the court found that the simple substitution of clay for wood or metal in doorknobs did not rise to the level of inventiveness required by patent. Instead, the material substitution was more like the work of a skilled craftsman than that of an inventor. The §103 test for nonobviousness under John Deere requires a three-part factual analysis:
Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy. John Deere at 17-18. Other secondary considerations not mentioned in John Deere which might play a role include acquiescence (i.e., does the world treat this as a nonobvious invention?) and the presence of unexpected results. On the other hand, if the invention is created more or less simultaneously by a number of people, that would tend to indicate that the invention was in fact obvious.
Example: Liser is a dog lover who works at a veterinarian’s office in Virginia. Recently, while washing a dog, she thought of an idea for a muzzle which would keep the dog’s jaws safely shut yet allow for full mobility of the head and neck. Phillip, who works at a veterinarian’s office in Connecticut, came up with the exact same idea just a few months ago. Deborah, who volunteers at a local dog pound, also had the same novel idea come to her just the other day. If these three inventors independently think up, and then make, muzzles which are substantially the same, the invention might be novel to each but likely will not meet the nonobviousness requirement. After all, with so many people simultaneously coming up with the same product, these are more appropriately described as cases in which people have had a “blinding flash of the obvious” than as cases in which true invention has taken place.