Instruct: Given a question, retrieve documents that can help answer the question.
Query: What was the first patented invention?
The first Patent Act of the U.S. Congress was passed on April 10, 1790, titled "An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts."[19] The first patent was granted on July 31, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins for a method of producing potash (potassium carbonate).
Terminology in Europe (the member states of the European Patent Organisation) is slightly different. While in the U.S. all patent applications are considered to cover inventions automatically, in Europe a patent application is first submitted to a test whether it covers an invention at all: the first out of four tests of (the other three being novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability). So an "invention" in European legal terminology is similar to "patentable subject-matter" in the American system.
A patent grants an inventor a legally enforceable monopoly over their invention. This means that others can be legally restrained from exploiting the invention. It is not the intention of the patent system to deny anyone what they have been free to do before someone claims an invention. For example, one cannot patent the wheel, as that would exclude others from doing what they had previously been free to do. The legal test is that the invention must be something new, i.e. it must possess "novelty". The invention of the wheel is not new, because the wheel already forms part of the prior art.
First, discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, programs for computers and presentations of information are not regarded as inventions and are excluded from patentability only to the extent that the invention relates to those areas "as such". This is "a negative, non-exhaustive list of what should not be regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC." "(For further information, see also: Software patents under the EPC)."
In a first-to-file system, the right to the grant of a patent for a given invention lies with the first person to file a patent application for protection of that invention, regardless of the date of actual invention.
A first-to-file priority rule does not permit one individual to copy another's invention and then, by virtue of being the first to file a patent application, be entitled to a patent. All patent applicants must have originated the invention themselves, rather than derived it from another person. In order to police this requirement, the proposed H.R. 2795 provided for "inventor's rights contests" that would have allowed the USPTO to determine which applicant is entitled to a patent on a particular invention.
The statute defines a "covered business method patent" as: a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . In addition to this affirmative language, Congress also provided a specific exception in the same subsection: "the term [covered business method patent] does not include patents for technological inventions." The Federal Circuit commented: "Unhelpfully, Congress did not then define a 'technological invention,' but instead instructed the USPTO to 'issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention." The USPTO by regulation promulgated what the court the USPTO's "version of a definition of a 'technological invention.'" in 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). That regulation states:
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which "inter alia" are new. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the novelty under the EPC, is . Namely, "an invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of is to prevent the state of the art being patented again."
The issue of non-obviousness reached the U.S. Supreme Court again in 1851 in "Hotchkiss v. Greenwood". The question was whether a substitution of known door knob materials such as metal or wood for a new material—porcelain—deserved a patent. The court concluded that "the improvement is the work of a skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor" and invalidated the patent. Such approach foresees the line of thought which was later formulated as the PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) approach to the analysis of inventiveness. Despite beginning to develop the PHOSITA approach, the Court did not give practical means to determine what how much inventiveness deserves a patent. It is worth noting here that Eaton and Hotchkiss, respectively, illustrate the heretofore existing trend to state the appropriate inventiveness by defining both what is obvious (lacks an inventive step / discovery) and what is non-obvious (has an inventive step / discovery).
According to the "Guide to the Practice of the Patent Office" 1853, the primary objective of a caveat was to prevent the issuing of a rival patent for the same invention to a subsequent inventor. Before the issuing of a patent, the caveats filed within the preceding year were searched. If one was found for the same invention as the proposed patent, the Patent Office notified the holder of the caveat, who then had three months to submit a formal patent application with claims. If the two patent applications claimed the same invention, an interference would then be declared and neither patent could be issued until it was determined which was the first to invent.
Patent examiners review patent applications to determine whether the invention(s) claimed in each of them should be granted a patent or whether the application should instead be refused. One of the most important tasks of a patent examiner is to review the disclosure in the application and to compare it to the prior art. This involves reading and understanding a patent application, searching the prior art (including prior patent applications and patents, scientific literature databases, etc.) to determine what contribution the invention makes over the prior art, and issuing office actions to explain to the applicants and their representatives (i.e., patent attorneys or agents) any objections that may exist against the grant of a patent. In other words, an examiner reviews a patent application substantively to determine whether it complies with the legal requirements for granting of a patent. A claimed invention must meet patentability requirements of novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness, industrial application (or utility) and sufficiency of disclosure.
In 2009, the Commissioner of Patents made several findings in its rejection of Amazon.com's patent application. First, it noted that both the form and substance of the claim must be evaluated. Form refers to the text of the claim and understanding the claim based on the text alone. Substance connotes the nature of the invention in question and what it adds to human knowledge. The Commissioner noted that the substance of the invention, defined by its new and inventive features, must fall within one of the statutory categories of invention found within section 2 of the "Patent Act".
The European Patent Convention does not provide any positive guidance on what "should" be considered an invention for the purposes of patent law. However, it provides in a non-exhaustive list of what are not to be regarded as inventions, and therefore "not" patentable subject matter:
Invention in the U.S. is generally defined to comprise two steps: (1) conception of the invention and (2) reduction to practice of the invention. When an inventor conceives of an invention and "diligently" reduces the invention to practice (by filing a patent application, by practicing the invention, etc.), the inventor's date of invention will be the date of conception. Thus, provided an inventor is diligent in actually reducing an application to practice, he or she will be the first inventor and the inventor entitled to a patent, even if another files a patent application, constructively reducing the invention to practice, before the inventor.
The procedures for obtaining a patent right in Japan is described in detail on the website of Japan Patent Office.
The patent prosecution procedure under Japanese law is similar to that in most other patent systems. Article 39 states that a person who is the first to file an application for a patent for an invention may obtain that patent, rather than a different person who is the first to invent the same invention.
Kahn had at least 75 patented inventions related to reinforced concrete. Kahn's first patented invention was the "Kahn Trussed Bar", also called "The Kahn Bar" or "Kahn Bar System", patented in 1903. This was the main product of the Trussed Concrete Steel Company, although the company produced many prefabricated steel products as well as complete buildings. Kahn's co-workers noted that he would stop what he was doing and write down an idea immediately, no matter what he was engaged in. Truscon employees were encouraged to come up with improvement ideas that would benefit the company and would be rewarded financially if their ideas were used. For example, David H. Morgan, a company employee, invented a new type of airplane hangar door that was subsequently manufactured by Truscon and was financially rewarded for his idea.
In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) enacted the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1952. After decades of debate in the U.S. comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of "first-to-invent" versus "first-to-file" systems, the AIA switched the U.S. patent system from "first to invent" to "first inventor to file". The U.S. had been the last remaining country still using a first-to-invent system. The AIA reforms eliminate interference proceedings and develop post-grant opposition. Its central provisions went into effect March 16, 2013 for patent applications filed that day or afterwards.
Even under a first-to-invent system, the first-inventor-in-fact does not always obtain entitlement to a patent. If, for example, a first-inventor-in-fact maintained his invention as a trade secret for many years before seeking patent protection, he may be judged to have "abandoned, suppressed or concealed" the invention. Well-established patent law provides that an inventor who makes a secret, commercial use of an invention for more than one year prior to filing a patent application at the USPTO forfeits his own right to a patent. If an earlier inventor made secret commercial use of an invention, and another person independently invented the same technology later and obtained patent protection, then the trade secret holder could face liability for patent infringement. Many foreign patent regimes, on the other hand, protect prior user rights, which are often seen as assisting small entities that may lack the sophistication or resources to pursue patent protection. The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 established a "first inventor defense," but limited the defense to patents on "methods of doing or conducting business;" H.R. 2795 would have extended it to all subject matter.
The claims of a patent specification define the scope of protection granted by the patent. The claims describe the invention in a specific legal style, setting out the essential features of the invention in a manner to clearly define what would infringe the patent. Claims are often amended during prosecution to narrow or expand their scope.
A legal concept in which the right to a patent for an invention is determined by the first person to file for a patent to protect that invention, "cf. First to invent.
A patent, being an exclusionary right, does not necessarily give the patent owner the right to exploit the invention subject to the patent. For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions that may still be covered by someone else's patent. If an inventor obtains a patent on improvements to an existing invention which is still under patent, they can only legally use the improved invention if the patent holder of the original invention gives permission, which they may refuse.
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which "inter alia" involve an inventive step. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the inventive step under the EPC, is . That is, an invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) have developed an approach, called the "problem-and-solution approach", to assess whether an invention involves an inventive step.
The legal definition of what constitutes a "useful invention" established in "Lowell v. Lewis" remained the controlling definition of utility in United States patent law into the Twentieth Century, when it was superseded by the "beneficial utility" doctrine, which is defined to exclude from patentability anything immoral or deceitful. The United States Patent and Trademark Office and federal courts no longer consider beneficial utility nor the deceitful or immoral qualities of inventions, beginning with, for example, cases sustaining the patentability of a slot machine in 1977, and drink machines with decorative reservoirs that did not contain the drink actually dispensed. However, the USPTO and courts continue to consider whether or not an invention has a definable use at the time of application, excluding inventions that are not operable, a requirement of utility that the invention do what is claimed.
Section 18(d) states that the term "covered business method patent" does not include patents for "technological inventions." This requires the court to first determine what is meant by that term, and then whether the PTAB was correct in finding this patent is not such an invention. Congress did not define the term, but left it to the USPTO to do so. In 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) the USPTO promulgated its definition. According to the regulation, a "technological invention" is one in which "the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and
unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution." The regulation specifies that these criteria will be considered "on a case-by-case basis." The Federal Circuit commented that "this definition is notable as much for what it does not say as for what it does say." In any event, the court said, "we are left with a definition of a 'technological invention' as essentially one having a 'technological' feature that solves a 'technical' problem using a 'technical' solution." Accordingly, the court said, "neither the statute's punt to the USPTO nor the agency's lateral of the ball offer anything very useful in understanding the meaning of the term 'technological invention. '"
Most patent applications have at least two components, including a general, written description of the invention and at least one "embodiment" thereof, and a set of "claims," written in a special style that defines exactly what the applicant regards as the particular features of his or her invention. These claims are used to distinguish the invention from the existing prior art, and are compared by the patent office to the prior art before issuing a patent.