8/9/2011
by: Joseph Page
Topic Views: 1115

Anticipation / Novelty

Does the art 'anticipate' my invention?

Anticipation
Related Topics: Novelty , Examination , Obviousness

'New' with respect to patentability

Anticipation is the legalese word for 'new'. When considering whether an idea is patentable or not, the patent office makes a determination with regard to whether the idea is 'new' or 'anticipated'. The determination is rather strict. Even tiny differences must be analyzed under a different test. Therefore, an invention is only 'anticipated' when the identical thing exists prior to the patent application.

 

Patentability

An invention is entitled a patent if it is new, useful and non-obvious. Simple. But how do we measure these? Fortunately, the first two are quite easy. 'Obviousness' is a different kettle of fish entirely.

"new", "novel" and "anticipation" are all pretty much synonyms for purposes of determining whether an invention is 'new'.

 

The Patent Law

There is little or no distinction between these terms and all refer to the principle which is encoded as law in 35 USC §102 which reads as follows (2011):

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was 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, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

(c) he has abandoned the invention, or

(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or

(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other."

 

An interpretation of the written Patent Law

OK – so what does it mean: "the invention was known", "the invention was patented"? A patent examiner has a rulebook called the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures or MPEP. This rulebook gives examiners precise instruction on how to look at these points 'anticipation' and 'novelty'. For the 'novelty' or 'anticipation' determination the MPEP says at §2131:

"to anticipate a claim, the reference must teach each and every element of the claim"

 

The Federal Court on what 'Patent Anticipation' means

The court has clarified further as follows…

"Anticipation is established only when a single unit of prior art discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. This test is to be strictly applied."

 

Our Guidance on Invention Anticipation

Most simply put, all this means that for an inventor to beat a §102 rejection, all he has to do is show that there is one, single, thin difference. Not a high hurdle at all. Only in the case where there are no differences whatever does a patent applicant lose on the §102 issue. If the examiner finds a reference which squarely and precisely teaches each and every element of the claim – then an invention is not 'new'. In other words, if something has not been precisely done before – it is 'new' for purposes of patenting. Otherwise, we must perform the test under obviousness principles rather than novelty. The patent office does have a very hard time sustaining 102 type rejections as rarely does an invention come where it has been done precisely without deviation nor difference when compared to the prior art.

Copyright IIP 2011
Be first to comment
Comments on the patent topic: Anticipation
If you like this article, please give us a social bump!
Patent Services Header Intellectual Property Patent Agent, patent attorney, patent law Patent Topic: "Anticipation" Patent Attorney Invention HOME IP Tip: #8
While it has long been the case that algorithms per se are not patentable, computer software is not under the same restriction.  Computer software and in particular computer software related to business methods have been under some serious judicial review of late.  The final result from the United States Supreme Court: computer software is largely patentable in re Bilski.  Further, European national courts seem to be taking the same position more each day as might be illustrated by the high German court ruling which upheld a major Microsoft patent recently. Patent Attorney, Patent law Software Patents - Bilski
Patent Attorney, patent agent, patent law, inventions
Home | Law Firm Contact | About Firm | Legal | SiteMap | Jobs | Patent Topic Index
.