United States: AI Can Almost Generate Evidence Of Patent Obviousness

For a patent to be valid, the critical question often is whether its invention was obvious, namely whether the differences between the invention and what existed before, i.e., the prior art, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, or POSITA, to which the invention pertains.¹

With the advent of artificial intelligence and the recent introduction of ChatGPT, we ask:

Can statements generated by AI be used to bolster a case for obviousness?

In other words, can AI-generated responses confirm that a difference between the invention and the prior art is so trivial as to be obvious?

If one assumes that AI can itself invent, a frequently discussed topic, then its responses would be irrelevant to the question of obviousness.² But if one assumes that an AI does not invent,³ then its statements are necessarily never inventive, but instead reflect known information.

While recent press has focused on use of AI as a tool for attorneys, for example in patent drafting and prosecution,⁴ this article uses the simple interface provided by ChatGPT to explore how an AI's statements might instead be used as evidence of obviousness in response to leading or nonleading questions.

As illustrated by our tests below, for example, ChatGPT is capable of predicting ranges in response to nonleading questions that could be compared with claim language. We also probe known weaknesses of ChatGPT to assess whether the current technology is capable of generating statements that would pass evidentiary muster.

Our testing identified several limitations in the current version of ChatGPT that must be overcome before its statements are likely to be considered reliable enough to be used as evidence.

ChatGPT: An AI

ChatGPT is a chatbot based on the AI named Generative Pre-trained Transformer version 3, or GPT-3.

In response to a question or statement, termed a prompt, GPT-3 identifies relationships between words or groups of words, termed tokens, in the prompt and uses those relationships to generate a probabilistic guess at the best response.⁵

By its nature, ChatGPT's responsive statements are the product of its training data as a whole and, at least currently, are not linked to a specific documents in its training data.

Put another way, ChatGPT's statements cannot be linked to a specific prior art reference. Instead, ChatGPT makes inferences from the training data and provides reasons for those inferences.

For a ChatGPT statement to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry for a patent, the version of ChatGPT and its training data should have been available before the effective filing date of the patent. This ensures that ChatGPT's statements are based on knowledge that was available before the patent was applied for.

The present cut-off date for ChatGPT's training data is September 2021.⁶ For all examples presented below, we assume that the current version of ChatGPT and its training data were available before the priority date of a future hypothetical patent.

An Example

Consider whether the following portion of a hypothetical claim limitation would be obvious, assuming that the remaining portions are disclosed in a prior art reference: a ceramic membrane configured for ultrafiltration of macromolecules in an aqueous solution, wherein the ceramic membrane has a pore size in the range of 0.1 nm to 15 nm and an operating pressure of less than 50 atmospheres, and wherein the macromolecules have a molecular weight in the range of from 10 to 1000 kilodaltons.

We prompted ChatGPT to ask for a suitable pore size — the feature missing from the prior art reference — given the rest of the context supplied by the limitation. In other words, we asked the kind of question that a POSITA might ask to fill in the implementation detail of what pore size would be suitable:

When we originally posed that question to ChatGPT, it generated the following response: Response: For the ultrafiltration of macromolecules with molecular weight ranges from 10 to 1000 kilodaltons, a suitable range of pore size in nanometers for a ceramic membrane would be in the range of 0.1 to 10 nm. This range of pore size can effectively remove macromolecules with molecular weight up to 1000 kilodaltons while still allowing smaller solvent molecules to pass through....

At first blush, this authoritative-sounding output suggests prior knowledge to use a pore size in the range of 0.1 to 10 nm, which is within the claimed range, because "[t]his range of pore size can effectively remove macromolecules ... while still allowing smaller solvent molecules to pass through."

Further confirmation can be found by starting a new session with ChatGPT and inquiring whether the claimed pore size range of 0.1 nm to 15 nm was nonobvious:

In this case, the response was as follows:

Indeed, if the foregoing prompts and responses were published and publicly accessible before the priority date of the hypothetical patent then they would constitute prior art.

In practice, however, an AI's statement would typically be generated during the course of patent litigation. In this circumstance, the statement's role in evidence would likely be corroborative in nature.

For example, computer simulation results have been used to bolster contentions that little effort was needed to identify a claimed parameter range⁷ and that a claimed arrangement of components did not yield a benefit over prior art arrangements.⁸

In the present hypothetical, the patent challenger could submit ChatGPT's statements as objective evidence that a POSITA would have known to select a pore size in the range of 0.1 to 10 nm without consulting the patent.⁹

Preferably, the showing would include proof that a POSITA was a user of ChatGPT in the relevant time frame. For example, if the claimed subject matter overlaps with the type of work product for which ChatGPT is routinely used, it would not be far-fetched to argue that a POSITA would have consulted ChatGPT.

Indeed, ChatGPT is already being used by software developers in a variety of programming tasks.¹⁰ Courts have credited simulation results based on similar reasoning, and might extend that reasoning to AI in fields where it becomes widely used and relied upon.

Litigation over the evidence would likely focus in two areas: (1) whether the prompt was objectionable; and (2) whether ChatGPT was reliable. Our experiments revealed some of the benefits that AI could bring to patent cases, as well as current technological limitations that must be overcome.

The Prompt

Conveniently, the patent challenger's control over ChatGPT is limited to what they submit in the form of prompts.

To see how the patent owner might object to a prompt, consider a scenario in which the patent owner believes the prompt incorrectly presumes that a POSITA knew to use ceramic membranes for the target application.

A patent owner could submit their own prompt to ChatGPT to elicit a statement showing that, without this knowledge, ChatGPT fails to recite a pore size falling in the claimed range of 0.1 to 15 nanometers:

And the response:

In reply, the patent challenger could submit a new prompt that elicits a statement indicating that ceramic membranes were known to be used to separate macromolecules such as proteins and enzymes:

And ChatGPT's response:

Reliability

The reliability of ChatGPT's statements is limited in several respects. It is well known, for example, that ChatGPT can generate factually inaccurate statements that nonetheless sound confident and plausible.¹¹

This phenomenon, known as hallucination, is exemplified by ChatGPT's responses that provide incorrect answers to 3-digit multiplication problems.¹² To buttress reliability, a patent challenger would seek to independently corroborate factual statements, preferably using prior art.

A patent owner might engineer prompts that exploit ChatGPT's known limitations. For example, a patent owner might exploit ChatGPT's tendency to hedge or even contradict its prior statements¹³ by asking "[a]re you sure? I don't think 0.1 to 10 nanometers is a suitable range of pore size." ChatGPT responded as follows:

The foregoing prompt is akin to a leading cross-examination question, and it is effective. Not only does ChatGPT's last response neutralize its earlier suggestion that choosing a pore size in the range of 0.1 to 10 nm was prior knowledge, the response also appears to teach away from this range as being not suitable and suggests using "ceramic membranes with pore sizes in the range of 50 to 500 nanometers" instead.

Moreover, attempting to redirect ChatGPT by resubmitting patent challenger's original prompt in this session would further undercut patent challenger's position because ChatGPT's new response recites "50 to 500 nanometers" instead of the original "0.1 to 10 nm":

Response: For the ultrafiltration of macromolecules ..., a suitable range of pore size in nanometers for a ceramic membrane is typically in the range of 50 to 500 nanometers....

Conclusion

Our tests with ChatGPT showed at least three ways in which AI is getting close to being capable of generating freestanding evidence of obviousness.

First, ChatGPT responded to a nonleading prompt with a specific range that could be compared to a claimed range.

Second, ChatGPT addressed the ultimate question of obviousness by disagreeing with the implied answer in a leading question.

Third, ChatGPT was probed with follow-on prompts resulting in a refinement of its statements.

While ChatGPT's statements would not necessarily qualify as prior art in a patent case, they could prove useful in a manner akin to simulation evidence or other scientific methods to bolster an obviousness case by showing that an AI was capable of predicting a claimed feature based on known information.

That said, the evidentiary value of ChatGPT's statements is currently limited by known shortcomings of ChatGPT, including susceptibility to prompt engineering and hallucination. These limitations can result in factually incorrect statements or contradictory statements, which undercut the reliability of ChatGPT as a source of evidence.

However, major investments are occurring in AI to address these issues. As one example, following ChatGPT's viral release, Microsoft Corp. recently invested $10 billion in OpenAI LLC, the creator of ChatGPT.¹⁴ Thus, looking ahead several years, one can begin to envision a patent litigation space in which AI-generated evidence will play a role.

Footnotes

1 35 U.S.C. § 103.

2 Walsh, "Can machines invent things without human help? These AI examples show the answer is 'yes'" (2022). Available at https://theconversation.com/can-machines-invent-things-without-human-help-these-ai-examples-show-the-answer-is-yes-196036 (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

3 Thaler v. Vidal , 43 F.4th 1207, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

4 Hetz et al., "When Lawyers Chat With Chatbots About Patent Drafting," Law360 (2023). Available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1571443/when-lawyers-chat-with-chatbots-about-patent-drafting (last visited Feb. 28, 2023).

5 Sciforce, "What is GPT-3, How Does It Work, and What Does It Actually Do?" (2021). Available at https://medium.com/sciforce/what-is-gpt-3-how-does-it-work-and-what-does-it-actually-do-9f721d69e5c1 (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

6 Siddiqui, "OpenAI's ChatGPT is a brilliant Tool but the Event Data is Limited to September 2021" (2022). Available at https://openskynews.com/openais-chatgpt-event-data-is-limited-to-september-2021/034092/ (last visited: Feb 12, 2023).

7 "Does ChatGPT remember what happened earlier in the conversation?" (2023) Available at https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6787051-does-chatgpt-remember-what-happened-earlier-in-the-conversation (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

8 General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation, IPR2018-01442, Paper 39, pp. 49-50 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020) (prior art simulation package used to show no undue experimentation required estimation of parameter values and other assumptions not disclosed in prior art). See also Satco Products, Inc., v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd ., IPR2020- 00608, Paper 39, pp. 17-18 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2021) (prior art simulation package used to show that rearrangement of prior art components to a claimed configuration does not improve performance).

9 In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971).

10 "ChatGPT tutorial: How to easily improve your coding skills with ChatGPT" (2023). Available at https://lablab.ai/t/chatgpt-tutorial-how-to-easily-improve-your-coding-skills-with-chatgpt (last visited: Feb. 13, 2023).

11 Wikipedia, "Hallucination" Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence) (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

12 Ansari, "Freaky ChatGPT Fails That Caught Our Eyes!" (2022). Available at https://analyticsindiamag.com/freaky-chatgpt-fails-that-caught-our-eyes/ (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

13 Moon, "ChatGPT knows Elon Musk is Twitter's CEO, despite saying its learning cutoff was in 2021" (2023). Available at https://www.semafor.com/article/01/12/2023/chatgpt-knows-elon-musk-is-twitters-ceo-despite-saying-its-learning-cutoff-was-in-2021 (last visited: Feb. 10, 2023).

14 Bass, "Microsoft Invests $10 Billion in ChatGPT Maker OpenAI." Bloomberg News (Jan. 23, 2023). Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-23/microsoft-makes-multibillion-dollar-investment-in-openai (last visited: Feb. 11, 2023)

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.