Legal Definitions - Prior art

In patent law, Prior art refers to all information that has been publicly disclosed or made available in any form, anywhere in the world, before the date an inventor claims to have created a new invention. This includes everything from published articles, existing patents, public presentations, product sales, and even widely known common knowledge.

The concept of prior art is fundamental to determining whether an invention qualifies for a patent. For an invention to be patentable, it must be both novel (new) and non-obvious. Patent examiners use prior art to assess these two critical criteria:

• If the prior art already describes the exact same invention, then the invention is not considered novel, and a patent cannot be granted.
• If the prior art contains enough information that the invention would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant field, then the invention is not considered non-obvious, and a patent cannot be granted.

Here are some examples to illustrate how prior art works:

• Example 1: A New Software Feature

  Imagine a software developer creates a new mobile application feature that allows users to instantly translate spoken words into another language in real-time during a video call. They apply for a patent, believing this is a groundbreaking invention.

  During the patent examination, the examiner discovers a research paper published online five years ago by a university team. This paper detailed a prototype system that achieved the exact same real-time spoken language translation during video conferences, and the paper was publicly accessible on the university's website.

  How it illustrates Prior Art: The university's published research paper constitutes "prior art." Because the core functionality of real-time spoken language translation during video calls was already publicly disclosed and described in detail before the developer's patent application, the developer's invention is not considered novel. Consequently, a patent for this feature would likely be denied.

• Example 2: A Specialized Kitchen Tool

  An inventor designs a new type of ergonomic garlic press that features a unique self-cleaning mechanism and a detachable handle for easier storage. They believe this combination of features is entirely new and seek a patent.

  A patent search reveals an old patent from the 1990s for a garlic press that also had an ergonomic design and a self-cleaning function. Additionally, a popular kitchenware blog from two years ago featured a review of a different garlic press that had a detachable handle for compact storage, though it lacked the self-cleaning feature.

  How it illustrates Prior Art: Both the old patent and the kitchenware blog post are "prior art." While the inventor's design combines these features, the individual elements (ergonomic design, self-cleaning, detachable handle) were already publicly known. A patent examiner might argue that combining these existing, known features would be obvious to someone skilled in kitchen utensil design, making the invention not non-obvious. Therefore, obtaining a patent for this specific combination might be challenging.

• Example 3: A Novel Manufacturing Process

  A chemical company develops a new, energy-efficient method for recycling plastic waste into high-quality fuel, using a specific combination of catalysts and a unique heating sequence. They apply for a process patent.

  During the patent review, it's discovered that a scientific conference presentation, given and recorded publicly three years prior, described a very similar process. This presentation detailed the use of the same class of catalysts and a heating sequence that closely resembled the company's claimed invention, achieving comparable results in plastic-to-fuel conversion.

  How it illustrates Prior Art: The publicly recorded conference presentation is "prior art." Since the key elements of the plastic recycling process, including the catalysts and heating sequence, were already publicly disclosed and discussed before the company's invention, the company's process would likely be deemed not novel or obvious to a chemical engineer. This would prevent them from securing a patent on the process.