Three Qualities That Make Quality Patents

Getting a quality patent can take a lot of work, but there are three qualities that should always be considered. These are prior art references, non-obviousness, and clarity.


Using mathematical tools to better understand the visual clarity grading process is important. This entails using a systematic and consistent data collection procedure. The resulting derived clarity grade is based on a predictable and mathematically related mathematical relationship between the inclusion parameters.

The mathematical relationship was derived from actual inclusion parameter data. It comprises the most common and statistically significant inclusion parameter combinations. The mathematically related clarity grade is derived from a numerical upper and lower limit for each combination. It may be considered in the context of ordinary skill in the art.

The following invention includes a method of providing a clarity grade for a gem. The method includes collecting a plurality of inclusion characteristics associated with the gem and parameterizing the relevant ones. A look up table is subsequently generated. The table comprises a number of categories including the relief, size and the like.

The exemplary methodology for providing a clarity grading look up table is discussed in detail below. A computer-executable script is provided to run a variety of scripts comprising various combinations of vision analysis filters. These are then used to generate a plethora of data about the gem in question. The results are then fed back into the computer-based clarity analyzing script.

The simplest way to determine the relief of an inclusion is to compare the average pixel value of the inclusion to the average pixel value of the surrounding area with a fixed radius around the inclusion. The relief is then calculated by matching the relationship between the two histograms to known relief factors. The resulting diagram can be used to isolate inclusions from reflective facets.

The aforementioned is not the only mathematically related clarity grading technique. Other techniques have been proposed, such as the identification of look up curves for various inclusion parameters.

The best clarity grading algorithm should be able to detect and classify typical inclusions and their corresponding characteristics. In addition, it should be able to identify and isolate rare and unusual inclusions. A reputable clarity grading system should be able to provide a clarity grade for a gem without sacrificing accuracy or consistency.


Having a good understanding of non-obviousness is essential for patent practitioners. Without this requirement, patents can be granted on trivial inventions. These inventions have no chance of earning a profit because the market value of the patented product is not enough to compensate for the inefficiencies of the invention.

Currently, the law focuses on how well the claimed invention performed on a technical task. This is a reasonable proxy for the social value of a patented invention.

In addition to focusing on how well the patent performed, the modern approach to obviousness relies on a number of cognitive tasks. The idea is that one cannot determine a reasonable expectation of success without considering technological risks.

Previously, courts used a “common sense” test. This test is not objective and is not applicable to all inventions. In this regard, the Supreme Court decision in Graham v. John Deere reshaped the law and led to the creation of two stages in the obviousness inquiry.

The first stage involves the challenge to discover the state of the art at the time of filing. This can be a technical or economic question. If the patentee challenges the state of the art, the tribunal evaluates the bearing of the evidence on the state of the art at the filing date.

The second stage involves real-world facts such as commercial success of the patented product. This can include the profitability of the patented product and the rapid growth in market share attributed to the claimed invention.

The third stage is the failure of others to develop the invention. This can be directly probative of a lack of motivation, or it can support validity. In some cases, this can be difficult to prove. However, the failure of others can be very useful for establishing the complexity of the invention.

In the Institut Pasteur case, Judge Richard Taranto took a different tack. He held that a court could use two-part inquiries to determine the motivation of the parties. In this case, the parties did not know that a toxic prior art compound would support the invention of a less toxic chemical.

Prior art references

Identifying and analyzing prior art references is an essential part of the patent process. This can be a tedious process that requires considerable time and effort. It is advisable to consult a patent attorney to ensure that your searches are successful. This can save you money and resources.

The key is to find out which prior art reference can help you figure out what you want to claim. There are several important factors that determine whether or not a particular piece of prior art will aid in the construction of a valid claim.

First, you need to consider the state of the prior art. If it is well-established that a particular piece of prior art is relevant, then you should be able to figure out the best way to apply it to your claim.

The best way to determine which prior art reference will be relevant is to look at the problem the inventor is trying to solve. This is the most obvious form of prior art.

The second factor is the teaching. The teaching can be implicit or explicit. It will either be a new idea or it will be a known functional equivalent. It must be something that is taught in the art.

The third factor is the motivation. The motivation must be a reasonable expectation of success. It may or may not be based on the inherent property. You need to be able to prove that the invention combines the teaching of one or more of the referenced works.

The most obvious thing that prior art can tell you is that your patent is not unique. You can also use it to make a case for non-infringement. You can do this by providing evidence that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This may involve citing an earlier patent or other related work.

The other obvious thing that prior art can tell you is how to avoid infringement. The easiest way to do this is to contact an attorney to assist with your search. You can also use Google Patent Search or PATENTSCOPE databases to conduct your searches.

Impact of prolonged prosecution process on patent value

Using a patent as a means of protecting an innovation is a powerful way to make an investment in the future of your product. However, the process of obtaining a patent can be cumbersome and expensive. It also assumes a certain degree of uncertainty. The speed with which a patent is issued can increase the duration of its protection. If the patent is issued early, the holder of the patent has a longer window to defend the product against infringement. This allows investors to assign a value to the patent and receive a stream of revenue from the patent’s ownership.

Prolonged prosecution can have a negative impact on the value of a patent. Taking advantage of the accelerated prosecution programs offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office can improve the chances of receiving a favorable outcome and minimizing the overall time and cost of the patent prosecution process. It can also help you to more accurately align the lifecycle of your product with the patent protection it provides. This can improve the expected revenue stream you expect from your product and allow you to maximize the value of the patent you have acquired.

Moreover, patent law’s institutional architecture illustrates a general problem with centralized systems. Several factors determine how much centralization a system should have. For instance, the Federal Circuit’s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction has a negative effect on the opportunity for experimentation. It also hinders the judicial system from incorporating policy levers to adapt to changing technological norms.