The State Council denied the request to grant a patent for disposable underwear. According to the lawsuit SIC had denied the patent because it lacked of inventiveness. The claimant on the other hand, claimed that SIC had failed to properly interpret the subject matter of the invention and its technical advantages. Also, it emphasised that this patent was already registered and accepted in other countries.
|Is it obvious why super-heroes wear their underwear over their tights?|
The inventive step is tested towards what is obvious to someone with a good knowledge of the subject (an expert) and having regard to what forms part of the state of the art. There is the need to identify what differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the ‘state of the art’ and the inventive concept of the claim. Obvious does NOT gain protection BUT only what is inventive.