Posts in Patent Basics

Writing a patent application is not as easy as many think. Indeed, the concept of usefully describing the invention, which on its face seems easy enough to understand, is not as straight forward as it might seem, and why you cannot simply file an abbreviate description of an invention and think that suffices to protect anything really. This article looks at the most common parts of a patent application, and provides discussion about what each section needs to include.

I’m not alone in thinking that at least a provisional patent application is extremely important. Stephen Key, the preeminent inventor coach in the United States, advises all his students to at a minimum file a provisional patent application on their inventions in order to establish what he calls “perceived rights.” Key’s strategy, which has been successfully followed by hundreds of his students who do find licensing deals, is to place that marker in the sand and define an invention with a provisional patent application.

Inventorship is one of the most fundamental concepts in patent law. Of course, fundamental does not mean easy or uncomplicated. Patents are granted to inventors, which is easy enough to say but not always as informative as the patent laws presume it to be. In fact, pretty much everyone comes to patent law for the first time with an erroneous…

Patents are expensive to obtain. The last thing you want to do is spend a lot of money if there are easy to find references a US patent search could locate… If you hire a professional patent search firm you may want to also consider adding an international patent search. Some search firms may already include an international patent search in the price, or at least a search of certain foreign databases. While US patent searches are essential, international patent searches are preferable if you can afford the extra cost.

There really is no one-size-fits-all approach inventors can follow, and there is no inventing roadmap to success that will work in all cases. Notwithstanding, there are certainly a number of things that can and should be understood if an inventor is going to pursue inventing as more than a hobby. By understanding some basic but critical information at the outset…

Although there is a popular misconception among inventors new to the field of inventing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is never going to grant a provisional patent. A “provisional”, as it is sometimes called, is a type of patent application. A provisional application for a patent can be filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to establish priority of invention, which is critically important given that the United States is now a first to file country. Although the U.S. is not a pure first to file country it is safest for inventors to assume that first to file laws do set up a race to the Patent Office. Therefore, it is essentially in virtually all cases for an inventor to file a patent application first — before anyone else who may also be working on the same invention. This is where a provisional application for a patent can be extremely useful.

Patent searches are excellent learning tools because they give you an opportunity to discover which aspects of your invention are most likely to contribute to patentability, thereby allowing the description in any filed patent application to focus on those aspects most likely to contribute to patentability. Without a patent search you would just be describing all the various aspects of your invention as if they are equally important, which we know won’t be the case… Not only do patent searches allow for focus to be placed on what is different and most likely patentable, but if knock-out prior art is found then the expensive a patent application has been saved.

I am frequently asked by inventors whether they should file a patent application before seeking to license their invention. Some even ask whether they should first obtain a patent before they submit the invention to a licensing company… I always tell inventors and entrepreneurs that the best invention to patent is one you will make money with regardless of whether you ultimately obtain a patent. After all, if there is not a market for the invention why would you ever consider spending the time and money to obtain a patent? The goal is to make money and investing in a business or to obtain a patent makes sense only if there is a reason to believe more money will be made than spent.

Like anything in life that is new, whether it be returning to exercise after a lengthy hiatus or learning a new language, you have to walk before you can run. Put one foot in front of the other. Too often I see inventors who come up with the idea and want to cut through the middle steps and file a patent application. If they skip the middle steps then they likely don’t have an invention, they can get frustrated and give up… The moral of the story is that inventing is not rocket science; inventors are those with persistence and a plan. Spend time little by little working the idea, describing what you have in text, thinking about the various alternatives and then get some drawings. This step by step approach to inventing will get you from idea to invention, putting you in possession of all the information you will need to file a patent application and attract customers and potential licensees.

The goal in a patent application is to provide a full, clear, and exact description of the invention in a way that particularly points out and distinctly identifies what the inventor believes he or she has invented and wants the patent to cover. Unfortunately, while articulating an invention many inventors fall victim to a host of common mistakes. Saying that…

The first thing to understand is that there is no such thing as contingency representation for purpose of preparing, filing and ultimately obtaining a patent. Patent attorneys and patent agents simply do not take contingency clients when the matter is patent procurement… Most inventors hate hearing this, but inventing is the easiest part of the entire process. This seemingly outrageous statement is perfectly accurate because inventing is the only part of the process that can be completely controlled. Once the invention is complete control shifts away from the inventor to others, like patent examiners and consumers, market forces take effect and even good inventions wind up being commercial failures.

The crux of this so-called adequate description requirement is that once the first four patentability requirements are satisfied the applicant still must describe the invention with enough particularity such that those skilled in the art will be able to make, use and understand the invention that was made by the inventor. For the most part this requirement can be explained as consisting of three major parts. First is the enablement requirement, next is the best mode requirement and finally is the written description requirement.

The nonobviousness requirement is a critical element to patentability. In essence, even if the applicant can demonstrate patentable subject matter, utility and novelty, the patent will not issue if the invention is trivial. In order to determine if an invention is trivial it is necessary to see if there was motivation in the prior art to do what the inventor has done, or if there is some reasonable expectation that the combination of elements would achieve a successful result. If the prior art does not explicitly, and with identity of elements, teach the invention, the patent applicant may still be thwarted if there are a number of references that, when combined, would produce the claimed invention.

Essentially, §102 requires the patent applicant to demonstrate that the invention is new. In essence, in order for a claimed invention to violate this “newness” requirement it must be exactly identical to the prior art… In order to understand the requirements of §102 it will be helpful to explore the concept of anticipation in detail. A claim is said to be “anticipated” if comparison of the claimed invention with a prior art reference reveals that each and every element in the claim under attack is shown or described, organized, and functioning in substantially the same manner as in the prior art reference.

Unfortunately, the patentability requirements are frequently misunderstood. For many who are not well versed in patent law one of the reasons it can be confusing when considering patentability is due to the fact that the first of the patentability requirements asks whether the invention exhibits patentable subject matter, or is patent eligible. The question of patent eligibility leads the many anti-patent zealots and other patent newbies to erroneously conclude that if an invention is patent eligible then a patent issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. So what is required for an invention to be patented? The patentability requirements mandate that the subject matter of the claimed invention be: (1) patent eligible; (2) useful, (3) new; (4) non-obvious; and (5) described with the particularity required so that people of skill in the relevant technology field or science can understand what the invention is, make the invention and use the invention without engaging in what the law calls undue experimentation.