IPNITE PATENT GUIDE
Novelty vs Inventive Step and Non-Obviousness
They are two different tests. An invention can be new and still be refused because it would have been obvious to a skilled person.
IPniteNovelty: one document, every feature
An invention lacks novelty when a single prior-art disclosure shows every feature of the claim, arranged as claimed. If even one feature is missing from that document, the claim is new over it.
Inventive step: would it have been obvious?
Inventive step, called non-obviousness in the United States, asks whether a person skilled in the field would have arrived at the claimed solution from the prior art, often by combining documents. The European Patent Office uses the problem-solution approach; U.S. examiners apply the Graham factors and the reasoning of the KSR decision.
An example
Suppose one document discloses a bottle with a temperature sensor and another discloses a display that changes color. A bottle combining both may be new, because no single document shows it, but it may lack inventive step if combining them was an obvious way to show temperature. Showing an unexpected technical effect helps argue inventive step.
What this means for drafting
Describe the technical problem, the advantages, and any unexpected results of your solution. Those facts are what you will rely on to argue inventive step during examination.
Get your application ready to file
Explore a Search Strategy Preview or Draft Preview with your own invention. The 7-day free trial does not include a complete search or a final refined, exportable application. No credit card and no automatic charges.
Try IPnite free