section 103

[screenzzzz]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY state

Regarding a Utility patent (process)

After reading through this (section 103) does anyone know a little more definitively, as to what they talking about is it the concept or the process, What I mean is; are they saying, "such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made" e.g. someone in the rubber industry Had a thought "it would be nice if a ball could float in the air: OR "someone actually came up with a way a thought and process on how to specifically do it OR if a person with ordinary skill would be able to define specifically how to make it"

35 U.S.C. section 103 provides:
"A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are [color=red]such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made[/color]to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."

Gary

[divgradcurl]

Section 103 (along with the other sections) discuss the invention, which means conception and reduction to practice. For either 102 or 103, the question is always whether the claimed invention was fully disclosed in a single reference (102) or whether the claimed invention was partially disclosed in one or more references, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine references, or would be able to fill in the missing pieces with their knowledge.

But the references or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art are compared to the actual claims in a patent, not the overall concept or idea.

[screenzzzz]

Thank you very much,

I found your response extremely helpful! It was precise, clear and to the point.