Novelty: Non-obvious and Non-anticipated

In this blog, I will first briefly introduce the concept of obviousness and anticipation, both of which are critical to determine if a patent will be granted. Then, I present my views on how these two concepts can be used to evaluate the novelty of the eight cup-sleeve patents discussed in my previous blog.

For a patent to be granted, the invention has to meet two criterions: non-anticipated and non-obvious.  Anticipation is a situation in which an invention is too similar to an earlier invention to be considered new. In order for an invention to be patentable, it has to prove that it is not anticipated by1) prior publications (a news article, academic theses, or prior patent), 2) prior inventions (if all significant elements of the later invention are found in an earlier one prior to the date of invention or the applications filling date), 3) placing the invention on sale more than one year prior to an applications being filed, or 4) public use or display of the invention more than a year prior to the filing the patent application. Obviousness, on the other hand, is much more subjective. Non-obviousness requires that the difference between the invention to patented and the prior art to be not obvious at the time the invention was made to a person skilled in art. In many cases, it is arbitrary because it depends on patent officers’ subjective judgment on whether or not the patent provides a new or unexpected improvement. Non-anticipated and non-obvious together prevent the patenting of inventions that are relatively insignificant measured by their differences with the prior art.

For the eight cup-sleeve inventions previously discussed, five are already granted patent and three are still in application. Do all these eight inventions entitle to patents?  It is obvious that these patents all have the same goal of insulating user’s hand from the temperature of the container. Further, their designs are based on the very same principle of creating extra room between the cup container and the user’s hand. Despite the obvious similarities, I argue that all eight patents are defendable on the ground of non-obvious and non-anticipated because each patent provide at least one incremental improvement that significantly improves either user experience or manufacturing efficiency. It is importance to recognize these subtle but at same time greatly beneficial improvements because they make our daily life more comfortable and convenient.