Abstract
This Note examines one aspect of patentability of an invention, namely that of "non-obviousness" as described in 35 U.S.C. § 103, and examines how the various interpretations of § 103 by the circuit courts (prior to 1982) and the Federal Circuit (after 1982) have evolved over time. Section 103 requires that the invention be "non-obvious" to a mythical person "having ordinary skill in the art" and the implications of this ordinary skill requirement will briefly be considered. A complementary area of patent litigation, the doctrine of equivalents, is examined alongside non-obviousness to address the question of how different an invention must be from the prior art before patent protection will be granted and sustained. This Note then explores the intersection of the interrelated protections of statutory non-obviousness and the judicial construction of "equivalents." Following a brief overview of patents and patentability, this Note outlines the maturing case law in the area of non-obviousness, and concludes with current views of non-obviousness (and to some extent, equivalents) in the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.
How to Cite
42 Ariz. L. Rev. 581 (2000)
24
Views
10
Downloads