Abstract
Assessment of the Inventive Step Requirement is one of the most sensitive and difficult stages in statutory invention registration. Different requirements are taken into consideration in determining if this requirement is satisfied. Such requirements are divided to two categories – primary and secondary− per the Patent Law practiced by United States Patent and Trademark Office. The studies show that the mentioned assessments are easier in US compared to European countries for in those countries the precision and solidarity in practicing the inventive step requirement is more compared to US. In Iran, contrary to the mentioned cases, the assessment is not done in the Patent Office by the experts but rather by the verification the office conducts from the Universities and Science and Technology Parks of the country wherein, due to lack of knowledge about the Patent Law, the assessment is not done precisely; an issue which can accentuate the outlook appertaining to oneness of innovation and inventive step in the process of assessment. The present paper attempts at studying the patent law in Iran and US in order to put forward the criteria which is practices in assessing the ‘inventive step’ in the Iran Intellectual Property Office (Patent Subdivision) and United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Highlights
INTRODUCTIONResorting to the already known procedure in that it can stimulate a person having average knowledge in a field to step into the process of causing changes in an already known technical area
The assessment of the inventive step requirement begins with the preliminary assessment of the criteria provided in Graham Factors
The case mentioned above shows that though the inventive step requirement is not taken into consideration formally as is done the studied United States Patent and Trademark Office, the reasoning offered by the experts convey the point that the inventive step requirement in determined before the invention is confirmed
Summary
Resorting to the already known procedure in that it can stimulate a person having average knowledge in a field to step into the process of causing changes in an already known technical area. Such changes might be intended for use in a similar field or a different one in the technological realm of the invention. 7. If the practices, recommendations or incentives (TSM factor) do exist in the technology real or the prior art as such they stimulate a person having average knowledge to reform or compound them aiming at reaching an invention, the claimed invention will be subject to obviousness. After the mentioned stages are passed, the expert needs to determine if the claimed invention as a whole, noting all the provisions stated in the instrument appertaining to the inventions by the people enjoying the average knowledge, is subject to obviousness or not. 1
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
