Wow! This is Novel — Page Not Found

aka a 404 Error

Looks like we haven't found the page you are looking for. In patent speak we failed the obviousness test. Sorry about that. Please check your url and try again or search our site with the search box above. You can also use the dropdown menus above to help find what you are looking for. The Resource Site Map is a master list of the resource links @ Way Better Patents™, that might be helpful too.

A little bit on Obviousness.


Easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent. A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, ...if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. (Or as one patentista explains, this is when someone who knows the subject area says, "Duh" when the new invention is explained. There is no Eurkea Moment.)


"The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (2) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (3) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (4) "sophistication of the technology; and" (5) "educational level of active workers in the field."

Determining Obviousness.

...the examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical "person of ordinary skill in the art" when the invention was unknown and just before it was made. In view of all factual information, the examiner must then make a determination whether the claimed invention "as a whole" would have been obvious at that time to that person.'

back to top