Well, Let me tell You: As an 'inventor' myself, not of the trivial Apple sort, the non-obviousness is in the eye of competent. My 'invention' was about an interferometer which is insensitive to five of six degrees of freedom. Not an easy task.
BUT: it was completely within existing physical laws, AND, You guessed, I was not the first one. Some polish guy had the idea two years earlier, and because of the iron courtain he could not apply and defend it in the West. As a fair arbitrator I would have liked to congratulate my Polish like-mind. But this is not how the capitalist-competitive-world pinpoints the issue. It took me some years to identify the essence of that. Guenter ________________________________ Jed Rothwell ... James Bowery wrote: > No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility > of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. Correct. I think "useful" means "usable." That is, the invention does something, however trivial. It works. The purpose it is applied to may be trivial, or of no practical or desirable use to anyone. It does not have to have any commercial value. I base this on discussions with David French, and also on various websites that say things like: "the invention must have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial." David French emphasizes that just because you get a patent, that does not mean the invention has any commercial value or that you will make any money from it. He says many patents are awarded for inventions that no one wants. They are "useless" in that sense. - Jed
