What is Inventive Step objection and how to overcome it?

Patentability of a subject matter majorly depends on: Novelty, Inventive Step and Industrial applicability – and the subject matter is supposed to comply all the three criteria to be eligible for patenting. Out of the three criteria, perhaps, proving the fact that the subject matter is inventive is the most challenging one. 

Now, inventive step being a subjective matter, it is quite unpredictable at times – the way of its interpretation may vary from person to person; thus, a dearth of uncertainty is always there till the end of the tunnel, i.e. till the grant of the patent. 

So let us first understand what actually is Inventive Step:

In the Indian Patents Act, 1970, Section 2(1)(ja) defines inventive step as:

““inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;”

To check for the presence of inventive step in a patentable subject matter, the examiner is free to combine or even mosaic the teachings of multiple prior arts – and if the resultant of the mosaicking results in a subject matter which is closely related to the patentable subject matter in question, the inventive step of the subject matter stands objected. Which in other words, indicate that if the resultant effect of combined reading of the existing prior art results something which functions in the similar fashion or solves the similar issue or addresses the same issue as that of the present subject matter in question, then the same would not be considered to be having inventive step.

When it comes to economic significance as a part of inventive step assessment, it depends on the disclosure in the application document – which ideally is required to disclose how the present subject matter contributes to economy (for e.g.: 1/5th of the price of a similar subject matter etc.). Economic significance is usually not that difficult to prove if the application already discloses the economic significance or if not, the applicant should be able to prove the same during the prosecution stage. 

The major challenge lies in identifying ‘a person skilled in the art’ because of the fact that ‘a person skilled in the art’ is not defined in the Indian Patents Act, 1970 – thus that always leaves the discretion to the examining authority with regard to identification of Inventive Step. Based on the case law evolution, it is generally followed that a person skilled in the art is one who:

  • Belongs to the same field as that of the subject matter in question;
  • Assess the subject matter based on his expertise or acquired knowledge in the same domain and is aware of the fact that small changes can bring dramatic functionality change in the subject matter.

Further, it is the ‘hindsight bias’ of the person skilled in the art results in evaluating past actions or occurrences where the evaluator is aware of how those actions or events turned out – which influences the judgement of the inventive step of the subject matter in question.

Now, how to overcome the inventive-step objection?

For an inventor or even for an attorney, learning the fact that the patent has been rejected based on the fact of invention being ‘non-inventive’ can be quite frustrating as ‘inventiveness’ is a pure subjective matter and many-a-times becomes tough to overcome. 

In India, inventive step objection generally comes in the stages of First Examination Report or Hearing or Opposition. Being subjective in nature, it can definitely get tricky, but then there are ways in which inventive step, if justified logically, can be overcome. Those can be:

  • Technically justify the fact that the subject matter in question is not a mere workshop improvement – it involves technical advancement, and thus even the mosaicking of prior arts would not result in the technicality as involved in the present subject matter;
  • Proving the fact that the prior arts cited to challenge the inventive step fail to teach or suggest the solution to the problem as has been done by the present subject matter;
  • A mere hindsight bias of the controller – without any fall back on the prior arts can be challenged based on the fact that none of the disclosures teach or suggest the solution to the problem statement as identifies as well as solved by the current subject matter;
  • Additionally, if the inventive step justification isn’t convincing enough, claim or specification amendments can be done to take care of the same.

Moreover, a well drafted patent application can even minimize the occurrence of obviousness rejection in the first place itself. It helps in saving resources and achieving the intended results. 

With the increasing rate of patent enforcement activities in India, it is quite frequently observed that the inventive step objections come up – but then with a properly drafted application, it can be minimized to a large extent.

Author: Priyanka Chakraborty

Copyright © 2023 Intellect Vidhya Solutions Law LLP. All rights reserved.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Is obviousness the same as inventive step?

The Term Obviousness is most of the times synonymously used for Inventive step – some Patent offices use the term Inventive Step while others use non-Obviousness.

While in India, the Indian Patents Act 1970 Section 2(1)(ja) defines inventive step, US Patent Law mentions, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

How is non-obviousness related to inventive step?

For a subject matter to be eligible for patenting, it should be sufficiently inventive and non-obvious. The purpose of the inventive step, or non-obviousness, requirement is to avoid granting patents for inventions which is a mere workshop improvement, and to achieve a balance between monopoly that patenting provides and encouraging invention.

What is the difference between inventive step and non-obviousness?  

The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used in Indian and Europe, while the expression “non-obviousness” is predominantly used in United States patent law. Thus, they both fundamentally indicates that an invention to be eligible for patenting, should be technically sound enough and not related to any known concepts of existing prior arts.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Categories

Search

    Categories

    Recent Posts

    • All Post
    • Copyright
    • Design Patents
    • Patent Filing
    • Patent Search
    • Trademark

    Related Posts

    Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

    Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

    Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

    Read More »
    July 13, 2024 No Comments
    The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

    The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

    In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

    Read More »
    July 12, 2024 No Comments
    The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

    The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

    In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

    Read More »
    July 8, 2024 No Comments
    Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA - Intellect Vidhya

    Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA

    What do personality rights entail? Before we delve into the recent legal disputes, let’s first grasp the concept of personality rights. In basic terms, personality rights (also referred to as publicity rights) refer to the rights that an individual has to manage the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other distinctive aspects of their identity. These rights hold great significance for celebrities, as their public image often holds substantial commercial worth. The Growing Importance of Personality Rights in India: Striking a Balance Between Safeguarding Celebrities and Preserving Freedom of Expression India has witnessed a notable increase in legal cases concerning the rights of individuals, especially those in the public eye such as celebrities and media personalities. These cases have ignited discussions about finding a balance between an individual’s personal rights and the essential right to freedom of expression. Let’s delve into three recent cases that have significantly influenced India’s perspective on personality rights. The Jackie Shroff Saga In May 2024, Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff took legal action to safeguard his identity, voice, images, and his well-known catchphrase “Bhidu” (a popular slang term for friend in Mumbai) against any unauthorised usage. The decision made by the Delhi High Court was intriguing as it took into account not only Shroff’s rights, but also other relevant factors. The court declined to remove a YouTuber’s parody video that cleverly utilised Shroff’s persona. The judge acknowledged the artistic nature of these videos and their potential as a source of income for young creators. This decision demonstrated a growing recognition among courts of the significance of online content creation and meme culture, particularly among younger individuals. Anil Kapoor’s Case: In a previous incident, Anil Kapoor, another renowned actor, found himself in a legal battle for comparable motives. In this instance, the court examined personality rights from a unique perspective – as a means of safeguarding a celebrity’s livelihood. The court emphasised the potential impact on a celebrity’s income from endorsements and other business deals when their image or voice is used without permission. They likened it to piracy, implying that exploiting a celebrity’s persona could be akin to robbing them of their earnings. India TV and Aap Ki Adalat: In May 2024, a highly debated incident unfolded, centering around Rajat Sharma, a prominent TV journalist, and his show “Aap Ki Adalat” (Your Court). A satirist, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, has been using the names “Jhandiya TV” (a play on words meaning “Depressing TV”) and “Baap ki Adalat” (Father’s Court) in his content. The court ruled that Choudhary must cease using these names, as they were found to violate India TV’s trademarks and Sharma’s rights to his own identity. This decision caused concern among individuals who value free speech, as they feared it could potentially hinder the creation of parodies or the ability to comment on public figures. Why is this relevant to you? You may be curious about the significance of these celebrity court cases for everyday individuals. Allow me to explain: 1. Impact on Content Creation: These cases have an influence on the type of content that creators are able to produce. If courts become more stringent, it could potentially pose challenges for creating parodies or offering commentary on public figures. 2. Online Content: Numerous young individuals generate income by producing online content. These decisions have a significant impact on the actions and content creators can take in their videos or posts. 3. Public Debate: In a democracy, it’s crucial to have the freedom to engage in discussions and even poke fun at public figures. These cases have a significant impact on the extent to which we are able to exercise our freedom. What comes after this? As India grapples with these intricate matters, here are a few suggestions that could contribute to establishing a more equitable system: 1. Improved Guidelines: It is important for courts to establish more precise rules when it comes to striking a balance between protecting personality rights and upholding free speech, particularly in the context of parodies and satire. 2. Caution in Issuing Court Orders: It is important for courts to exercise caution when issuing orders that restrict content, ensuring that both sides of the story are heard. 3. Recognising Varied Uses: It’s important to distinguish between utilising someone’s image for financial gain and using it for the purpose of commentary or critique. It is important for courts to acknowledge and understand this distinction. 4. Public Interest: Courts must consider the potential value of allowing commentary on public

    Read More »
    July 4, 2024 No Comments