The Examiner rejected the patent application for a system for preparing a schedule for travel on the basis that the claims are obvious. The Patent Appeal Board (PAB) considered the question of obviousness in light of two pieces of prior art. The PAB found that the invention was not obvious, writing that, "while the implementation of this solution, from a technical standpoint, could be trivial for a skilled person once directed to do so, there is no apparent suggestion or impetus for the skilled person to implement such a solution". The PAB recommended several amendments to the claims and the Commissioner of Patents concurred with the finding by the PAB that the application was not obvious.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Patent Appeal Board considers solution to problem non-obvious
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
Legal Services Director
BMW (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
"Lexology is a quick and useful indicator of developments in the legal sphere. It alerts me to changes taking place in the legal environment in South Africa that I may not otherwise have spotted or had immediate access to as a company lawyer. It definitely serves as a trigger for me to investigate such changes in the legal landscape in South Africa as they may affect my work and that of my employer. I believe that receiving Lexology provides me with a competitive advantage."