Also known as: non-obviousness standard · nonobviousness · obviousness · § 103
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory requirement for patentability that an invention must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains at the time the invention was made. The standard prevents patents on combinations or modifications that would have been within the ordinary skill of the art.
Nikhil Narayan develops a plow with the hinge plate placed under the frame and secured by a bolt and nut instead of riveting. A court evaluates whether this arrangement would have been obvious to a skilled agricultural mechanic familiar with existing plow designs and spring mechanisms. Because the change merely rearranges known elements without unexpected results, the invention fails the nonobviousness standard and the patent is invalid.
Nathan Nguyen invents a shock-absorbing plow hinge using a spring and bolt combination already known in the field. The examiner rejects the application because a person of ordinary skill would have found the placement of the hinge plate obvious from prior mechanical references. The patent is denied under the nonobviousness standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nexus Financial files a patent on a method for hedging risk in commodities trading. The Court examines whether the claimed process is merely an abstract idea or instead meets the nonobviousness standard by producing a novel and nonobvious transformation of data. The application is rejected because the method adds no inventive concept beyond conventional hedging techniques.
Nile Shipping seeks a patent on a method of growing larger synthetic crystals for industrial use. The Court considers whether the process would have been obvious to a chemist skilled in the art given existing crystal-growth techniques. Because the method merely scales known variables without unexpected results, it fails the nonobviousness standard.
Northstar Logistics claims a patent on a computerized system that calculates and reports mutual-fund share values. The court assesses whether the combination of known data-processing steps produces a nonobvious result. The patent is upheld because the specific transformation of financial data into a useful output satisfies the nonobviousness standard.
Nora Nash obtains a patent on a fiberglass boat hull molded from a known plug. A competitor argues the design is obvious because the molding technique was already used in the industry. The Court holds that the patent is invalid under the nonobviousness standard because the claimed hull adds nothing inventive beyond conventional manufacturing methods.
The inquiry asks whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Secondary considerations such as commercial success or long-felt need may be relevant but do not override a clear showing of obviousness.
Supporting sources
Novelty under section 102 asks whether the invention is new and not identically disclosed in a single prior-art reference. Nonobviousness under section 103 asks whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious even if it is technically new.
Supporting sources
The Graham factors require determining the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill, and any secondary considerations such as commercial success or failure of others.
Supporting sources
…antibiotic. [^maj-5]: This case does not involve the other "conditions and requirements" of the patent laws, such as novelty and nonobviousness. 35 U. S. C. §§ 102, 103. [^maj-6]: This same language was employed by P. J. Federico, a principal draftsman of the 1952 recodification, in his testimony regarding that legislation:…