5

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103(a), if the combination of the known elements as a whole is something that is obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention/combination was made, then the invention is not patentable. Combining a word processing program with features from a web site analytics program may be considered obvious, ...


4

Some of the above answers are a bit outdated, though still generally useful. As of the America Invents Act (AIA), effective March 16, 2013, 35 USC 103(a) is deprecated. Also, as of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) there need be no "teaching, suggestion or motivation", found in the prior art, for a combination of known elements to be ...


3

The pencil and erase combination was ruled not patentable as neither function operated differently when combined. I always thought this overlooked the convenience of the operator and that their hand did not have to leave the paper to correct a mistake. This had nothing to do with whether or not combining the two was obvious as I think the Supreme Court ...


3

As some other answers have suggested, there are two major requirements that are relevant to your question. The two requiresments are: novelty and nonobviousness. (Nonobviousness is a U.S. term; in Europe this is referred to as inventive step.) To earn a patent, your invention must pass both tests. In your case, the invention passes the test of novelty ...


2

A thorough patent search is something even professionals need hrs for. The problem is that there might be many patents in that general direction. To do a complete search one needs the exact specifications of the invention (don't post them, that would destroy novelty and therefore patentability). And even professionals will never promise that they found ...


2

First step is to review their patent(s). If you had a patent, it is very unlikely they patented the same thing as your patent would be prior art. If they indeed have a patent, it is probably on a refinement and only the refinement has patent protection. If you know the company and supposed inventor's names it should be easy to do a search on Google Patents ...


1

Just describe it fully and accurately. If limited to iPhone, I might mention not only the device, but the iOS operating system. The main thing with the provisional is don't leave anything out. It's only an official document in reference to a subsequent nonprovisional application, and you can remove anything problematic for the nonprovisional. (i.e. you ...


1

The patent has been issued with narrowed claims: https://www.google.ch/patents/US7512537?hl=de The examination went through some steps and prior art was considered. You can find the docket here: https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.8688005.A&lng=en The documents named (non)-final rejection and the responses contain the relevant communication ...


1

The intention behind the passage you quoted is that the applicant wants to cover the overall concept of their invention, not just the specific uses of it that they provided in the description. However, the sentence likely has very little real, legal effect. This is because a patent's scope is always set out by the claims. There are some cases in some ...


1

As I understand it, publication of a book outlining the details of what is claimed in the patent more than a year prior to the patent being applied for constitutes public disclosure of the information and therefore the information is no longer patentable. As far as I am aware, all of the patent claims have been disclosed already in their prior book ...


1

Determining whether or not an innovation is novel is usually based on a novelty search. This means performing a comprehensive search of the prior art, which includes not only existing products, but also patents, patent applications, and other published literature. Many patents and applications never result in an actual product, so there may be prior art ...


1

If the all the characteristics of your invention are not found in one prior art single document then your invention is considered new. However, it might not be considered inventive if the combination of all these characteristics would be considered something straightforward to the skilled man in that technology area. As you might suspect this has to be seen ...


1

The short answer is no, due to 35 USC 103(a). The longer answer depends on the specifics of the combination. In general, if it would have been beyond the skill of an ordinary programmer to import the features of the web site analytics software into the word processing program without a great deal of experimental effort, then it might be patentable (with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible