Also known as: nonobviousness · non-obviousness requirement · non-obviousness · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · obviousness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A patentability doctrine requiring that an invention not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time it was made. The inquiry focuses on whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have rendered the subject matter obvious.
Nexus Technologies developed a new hinge placement and bolt configuration for agricultural plows to absorb shocks from obstructions. Prior art used top-mounted hinges and rivets. When sued for infringement, the court examined whether the combination would have been obvious to a skilled mechanic familiar with plow designs and spring mechanisms at the time of invention.
Nimbus Cloud sought a patent on a method for hedging risk in commodities trading using a computer algorithm. The examiner rejected the application, finding that the combination of known hedging techniques with conventional computer implementation would have been obvious to an accountant or financial software engineer.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Navarro Industries filed a patent application claiming a method for managing weather-related risks in energy markets through a series of transactions. The PTO and courts assessed whether the claimed steps, when viewed as a whole, would have been obvious to a practitioner in commodities trading and financial engineering.
Nordic Ventures obtained a patent on a computerized system for managing mutual fund assets through a hub-and-spoke structure that pooled investments. Competitors challenged validity, requiring the court to determine whether the data processing steps and mathematical calculations produced a nonobvious result beyond conventional computer operations.
Naveen Nanda created a Pseudomonas bacterium containing multiple stable plasmids enabling degradation of several crude oil components. The patent office initially rejected the application on the ground that living organisms were not patentable subject matter, but the Supreme Court ultimately evaluated whether the claimed process of plasmid transfer and stable maintenance was nonobvious.
The central question is whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Supporting sources
No. A combination of old elements may still be nonobvious if the arrangement produces a new and unexpected result or solves a problem in a nonobvious way.
Supporting sources
Evidence of commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, and copying by competitors can support a finding of nonobviousness when tied to the claimed features.
Supporting sources
No. Novelty asks whether the invention is new, while nonobviousness asks whether the invention would have been obvious even if it is technically new.
Supporting sources
…antibiotic. [^maj-5]: This case does not involve the other "conditions and requirements" of the patent laws, such as novelty and nonobviousness. 35 U. S. C. §§ 102, 103. [^maj-6]: This same language was employed by P. J. Federico, a principal draftsman of the 1952 recodification, in his testimony regarding that legislation:…