Under which conditions are combinations of inventions considered novel according to the exceptions to the Graham Factors test?

Under which conditions are combinations of inventions considered novel according to the exceptions to the Graham Factors test?

• A. If the combination is obvious to one skilled in the art.
• B. If the results of the combination are not predictable from the prior art.
• C. If the combination uses at least one known process.
• D. If the substitution leads to no improvement over the prior art.

Answer: (B)

The correct choice states that combinations of inventions are considered novel if the results of the combination are not predictable from the prior art. This aligns with the Graham Factors, which are used to assess non-obviousness in patentability. According to these factors, a showing of novelty requires that the combination yields results that cannot be easily anticipated by someone skilled in the art based on prior knowledge. When an inventor combines known elements in a way that produces unexpected results, this combination demonstrates novelty because it goes beyond what would be obvious to someone already familiar with that technology. The predictability of results plays a crucial role in determining whether a combination is merely an obvious step or a novel invention. If the outcome is surprising or significantly advances the field, it strengthens the claim of novelty. In contrast, when combinations are obvious or yield predictable results similar to those already known, they do not fulfill the criteria for novelty. Therefore, focusing on the non-predictability of the results highlights the inventive step in such combinations.

The correct choice states that combinations of inventions are considered novel if the results of the combination are not predictable from the prior art. This aligns with the Graham Factors, which are used to assess non-obviousness in patentability. According to these factors, a showing of novelty requires that the combination yields results that cannot be easily anticipated by someone skilled in the art based on prior knowledge.

When an inventor combines known elements in a way that produces unexpected results, this combination demonstrates novelty because it goes beyond what would be obvious to someone already familiar with that technology. The predictability of results plays a crucial role in determining whether a combination is merely an obvious step or a novel invention. If the outcome is surprising or significantly advances the field, it strengthens the claim of novelty.

In contrast, when combinations are obvious or yield predictable results similar to those already known, they do not fulfill the criteria for novelty. Therefore, focusing on the non-predictability of the results highlights the inventive step in such combinations.