The Figure presents a novel approach to checking for Novelty, which may be useful especially in complex inventions such as Software, Internet, wireless communications, microchip design or megastructures-related patents.

At present, Non-obviousness may be proved with Secondary Considerations. This is a most useful method, since it may be very difficult to define the non-innovative person skilled in the art, in that specific art, at the time the invention was filed.

The test is indirect, Non-obviousness is inferred from its effects or symptoms which may be more easily tested. Similarly, patent Infringement may be proved using the Doctrine of equivalents, again an indirect test.

A new method is now presented to test for Novelty, also using an indirect test. The method checks for various parameters which may affect or be affected by the Novelty of the invention, and use these parameters to decide on Novelty.

These parameters may include, for example:

- the problem to be solved, or the stated goal of the invention
- the approach taken to solve the problem or achieve the goal
- the function of the novel invention (what it does)
- the benefits or advantages over the prior art
- uses of the invention.

Indirect Criteria for Novelty may be defined as various combinations of the above, for example: if an invention under examination addresses the same problem as a previous patent, using the same approach and achieves the same benefits, then it may not be novel.

This criterion may be used, for example, to compare software modules which are written in a different code, possibly in different computer languages.

Indirect criteria for proving Novely may be defined by the Authorities, if they decide to do so.
Accordingly, in a novel patent application structure according to the present invention, such information which may be indicative of Novelty using suitable info may be provided.

The problem of software patenting worries the Government for more than 40 years now. The Johnson Report indicated that the problem to patent protecting of software is the difficulty in examination. At present, the problem is more acute, with more complex patents in more areas. Thus, we believe the new method for testing for Novelty will help draft higher quality patents and in their examination.

Patentability criteria:

An adequate written description must reasonably prove to those skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention.

To those skilled in the art - what is known to professinals need not be proved.
See Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566-67, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The claimed invention subject matter need not be described literally, i.e., using the same terms; some people use different, broader terms in the claims, to claim a broader invention than what was illustrated by way of example in the disclosure.

We believe this is a mistake, because it would be easy for the applicant to copy the broader terms from the claim to the end of an embodiment, as a broadening paragraph. Thus, the terms in claims and description do match, stronger protection may be allowed, and the applicant saves examiner's time.