Premium
Novelty and Non‐Obviousness
Author(s) -
Franzosi Mario
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
the journal of world intellectual property
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.334
H-Index - 8
eISSN - 1747-1796
pISSN - 1422-2213
DOI - 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2000.tb00148.x
Subject(s) - library science , convention , citation , intellectual property , history , political science , law , computer science
To understand the relationship between novelty and non-obviousness (inventive level), the starting point should be a definition of the concepts. Some elementary and imprecise notions can be assumed at this stage, without yet attempting to examine the matter in depth. It can be said that an invention is new (novel) when it differs from the prior art. Not much difference is required; a small difference is sufficient (how much difference will be seen later on). Simply, an invention A’ is new when is different from the prior art A. A’≠A. It can be said that an invention is non-obvious (or possesses inventive level) when it is sufficiently different from the prior art. A certain degree of difference is required; a simple difference is not sufficient (how much difference will be seen later on). Therefore, an invention A’ is non-obvious when it is significantly different from the prior art A (A’ ≠ A). At this point, one might wonder whether the concept of novelty should really be maintained and investigated. In fact, since a simple novelty is not sufficient, and a qualified or enhanced novelty (non-obviousness) is necessary, why should one try to determine the smaller concept embodied in the broader one?1