As a patent attorney, one of the most frustrating experiences is seeing a client lose potential rights because they do not recognise they have something patentable.
Most potential patentees understand that the invention must be novel and inventive to be patentable. Therefore, when they develop a new product or process which uses something which is previously known, often this is dismissed as being unpatentable. However, under certain circumstances, good experimental design along with appropriately drafted patent specifications can produce strong commercially effective patents.
Some ways that this can be done are listed below.
This is a term that is often applied when there has been prior disclosure of the subject matter in general terms, but not of the specific subject matter in the patent claims. While normally attributed to chemical patents, the broad principles can be applied to any subject matter – provided there is sufficient experimental data backing up the claims.
Often inventors do not realise that the process of choosing the best way to operate a process or design a product can be patentable, even if the basic elements are already known. Further, discovering the best way of doing something, is worth protecting as it is bound to provide a competitive advantage in the market.
The trick is to prove that the selection of the best conditions, dimensions or material meets the following criteria.
1. the selection was based on substantial advantage resulting from the use of the selected members;
2. substantially all members of the selected class possessed the advantage in question; and
3. if the selection was in respect of a quality of a special character, that it could fairly be said to be peculiar to the selected group.
Essentially we need to show that an unexpectedly good result is achieved within a certain parameter range or selection of compounds/materials – which is not achieved outside of that selection.
Simply knowing what works well is not enough. The inventor needs to be able to show the boundaries of what works and what doesn't work with evidence to back it up. Not only is this information useful for supporting the claim to a selection invention in the patent, but also this can prompt the inventor to consider other potentially useful materials or parameters that have not been previously considered. This may lead to effectively broadening the inventive parameters or greater improvements.
Patent attorneys can help inventors design their experiments to find the required boundaries.
New Useful Known Product
Many inventors do not recognise that using a known product in a new way, can be patentable.
If the usefulness of the old product for the new use was totally unexpected, then that is patentable.
Often this is not the case.
However, when you interrogate (and I do not use this word lightly) the inventor further, often you discover that the inventor has had to adapt the old product for the new use. Often these adaptations can be patentable and worthwhile patenting. However, as with selection inventions good experimental design can provide the backup for the claimed invention.
Experimental design can include
a) showing how the original product would not work for the specific use.
b) information on how the specific use has special conditions not present with the conventional use of the product, and
c) data on the trial and error approach to determine the adaptations required.
An example of this is the application of communications technologies to electric fence systems. Communications technology is highly sophisticated and well known. However, electric fence systems have some peculiar attributes not found in normal communication systems. These include generation of a 10,000 volt pulse every second and greater chance of attenuation or shorting occurring through grass or animals touching fences. Inventing a solution to make a communication system to work in such conditions was patentable and produced a product which has been very successful.
Just putting two known products together is not patentable. However, if there is a synergistic effect or working interrelationship resulting from the combination, then that can be patentable. Again, good experimental design can show this.
Anecdotally one of the better stories about a synergistic effect can be found with Coca Cola. Originally Coca Cola included a combination of caffeine and cocaine. Apparently the caffeine sensitised the neural pathways in the brain so that the cocaine gave a more significant effect. This provided quite an effective tonic for "nervous businessmen". Theoretically, this synergistic combination could have been patented.
Experimental design must include showing the result of using individual components of the combination in comparison with the result of the combination itself. If the "sum of the whole" is greater than the "sum of the parts" then synergy has been shown and the new combination potentially patentable.
Because of the foregoing, I consider it is critical that patent attorneys are brought in at the start of the inventive process. They can help with the experimental design to obtain data to support a potentially patentable product or process.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.