ABSTRACT
We all know that patentability standards are having three main pillars novelty, industrial application as well inventive. Now the question is whether there is really need any separate existence of Novelty as well as Inventive step. They are significantly encompassing each other. Hence in the following paper such has been described thoroughly. Firstly each of the components of novelty as well as inventive step are analysed, where it is been that both through objective as well as philosophically the same. After that there is also highlight of various case laws in order to bring pit the practicality of the matter. Hence post to it the highlighting of the various adverse effects the sae with it different affixation having upon the applicants as well as common people, making it a lengthy process. Lastly the devising of various solutions against the problem i.e. merging the two principles and making it more effective, is mentioned. And at the end the summarization of the entire matter is shown.
INTRODUCTION
We all know, patents being one of the most prominent forms, of IP and also being applied on the products being the most commercially utilized as well as commercially exploited, hence in order to get protection upon certain goods, there is actually a very strong scrutiny made in order to have determined the patentability standard of a particular product. Hence their process of evaluating a particular product is rather compared to be much accurate to the objective as well as filtering in lieu of the reason as mentioned above. This the three main prototypes they always try to adhere with. One is the novelty, the other is the inventive step and lastly the most important one is the industrial application. If we analyse the part of the industrial application part of the three main factors, we get to find out that the last one is actually serving the objective of the standard put to the same. The reason for which the same is given with the patents is to gain from the market economy. As science & technology is there for he welfare of the people, similarly the work of the parents does also work accordingly with their standard. Hence such is the mandate for them. On other hand the other part deal with why the same would actually get the patent over the same. That is the uniqueness the same actually wants to bring from the particular invention, which is not there in any kind of invention made so far as well as granted so far. So under such uniqueness there is two major divisions regarding the same. They are namely the novelty as well as the inventive step. Both of these ideas are at the end of the day having shared a common objective, i.e. anything new to be created. The essence of Novelty is such that the same is having such newness, which would not be found to be present in the knowledge of the public. On other hand inventive step is such where the particular step / process through which the particular new product is made, such process should not be made known or applied i.e. being obvious for the persons, who are there in making such kind of inventions, But the fact s that the parallel existence of theses two kinds of products, some way or the other is creating diversification of approach for a same dimension. It is actually the steps which creates something novel. Through a particular step which is novel in nature i.e. id having no prior knowledge of any body but created something which has nothing new about it in the same. Hence for that then there would not be any kind of relation with the commercial exploitation. The particular product, which if cannot keep any kid of significance in the market economy, then accordingly there would not be any kind of utilization for such product. Hence no benefit from the particular product, which would make the same of no use to give protection under the regime of the patents, contra ringwith the basic essence of the ideology. On other hand for the creation of a new product, it is obvious of having an inventive step created which would facilitate the same. On other hand for novelty it says keeps restriction regarding the knowingness of the public, on the other hand the same is for the person skill in the art, is for the inventive step. But the question is whether not public is actually inclusive of both the abovementioned the persons. So whether there is actually the need to have separate criterion for both novelty as well as the inventive step is actually the pre requisite for having the patentability standard to be granted is actually the discussion here and has been eluded in the following paras.
KEYWORDS
Patents, novelty, inventive step, rationale, parallel existence, effect to patentees and common people.