What types of inventions are not eligible for patent protection?

Some types of inventions will not qualify for a patent, no matter how interesting or important they are. For example, mathematical formulas, laws of nature, newly discovered substances that occur naturally in the world, and purely theoretical phenomena -- for instance, a scientific principle like superconductivity -- have long been considered unpatentable. In addition, the following categories of inventions don't qualify for patents:

• processes done entirely by human motor coordination, such as choreographed dance routines or a method for meditation
• most protocols and methods used to perform surgery on humans
• printed matter that has no unique physical shape or structure associated with it
• unsafe new drugs
• inventions useful only for illegal purposes, and
• non-operable inventions, including "perpetual motion" machines (which are presumed to be non-operable because to operate they would have to violate certain bedrock scientific principles).

Can computer software qualify for patent protection?

Yes. Even though you can't get a patent on a mathematical formula per se, you may be able to get protection for a specific application of a formula. Thus, software may qualify for a patent if the patent application produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result. For example, the USPTO will not issue a patent on the complex mathematical formulas that are used in space navigation, but will grant a patent for the software and machines that translate those equations and make the space shuttle go where its supposed to go.

Is it possible to obtain a patent on forms of life?

Forms of life, from bacteria to cows, that are genetically altered to have new and useful characteristics or behaviors, may qualify for utility patents. Also patentable are sequences of DNA that have been created to test genetic behaviors and the methods used to accomplish this sequencing. As a general rule, you can't patent a human being. However, with the advent of cloning techniques and the ability to mix genes across species -- for example, the human immune system genetic code transplanted into a mouse for testing purposes -- the question of what a human being is, and what life forms can and cannot be patented promises to be a subject of fierce debate for years to come.

What makes an invention "novel"?

In the context of a patent application, an invention is considered novel when it is different from all previous inventions (called "prior art") in one or more of its constituent elements. When deciding whether an invention is novel, the USPTO will consider all prior art that existed as of the date the inventor files a patent application on the invention. If prior art is uncovered, the invention may still qualify for a patent if the inventor can show that he or she conceived of the invention before the prior art existed and was diligent in building and testing the invention or filing a patent application on it.

An invention will flunk the novelty test if it was described in a published document or put to public use more than one year prior to the date the patent application was filed. This is known as the one-year rule.

When is an invention considered "nonobvious"?

To qualify for a patent, an invention must be nonobvious as well as novel. An invention is considered nonobvious if someone who is skilled in the particular field of the invention would view it as an unexpected or surprising development.

For example, in August 2006, Future Enterprises invents a portable, high-quality, virtual reality system that can be manufactured for under $100. A virtual reality engineer would most likely find this invention to be truly surprising and unexpected. Even though increased portability of a computer-based technology is always expected in the broad sense, the specific way in which the portability is accomplished by this invention would be a breakthrough in the field, and thus unobvious. Contrast this with a bicycle developer who uses a new, light-but-strong metal alloy to build his bicycles. Most people skilled in the art of bicycle manufacturing would consider the use of the new alloy in the bicycle to be obvious, given that lightness of weight is a desirable aspect of high-quality bicycles.

Knowing whether an invention will be considered nonobvious by the USPTO is difficult because it is such a subjective exercise -- what one patent examiner considers surprising, another may not. In addition, the examiner will usually be asked to make the nonobviousness determination well after the date of the invention, because of delays inherent in the patent process. The danger of this type of retroactive assessment is that the examiner may unconsciously be affected by the intervening technical improvements. To avoid this, the examiner generally relies only on the prior art references (documents describing previous inventions) that existed as of the date of invention.

As an example, assume that in 2009, Future Enterprises' application for a patent on the 2006 invention is being examined in the Patent and Trademark Office. Assume further that by 2009, you can find a portable virtual reality unit in any consumer electronics store for under $100. The patent examiner will have to go back to the time of the invention to fully appreciate how surprising and unexpected it was when it was first conceived, and ignore the fact that in 2009 the technology of the invention is very common.