Inventive step, explained for engineers

The notional person

Obviousness is judged through a legal fiction: someone who knows the common general knowledge and all the prior art in the field, is technically competent, and has no inventive capacity whatsoever. In a complex field this may be a team rather than an individual.

So arguments about how long it took you, how many prototypes failed, or how proud the team is, do not answer the question directly - although a long-standing unsolved problem is real evidence.

What actually answers the objection

A chain, in this order. Here is the technical problem. Here is what the cited art teaches a skilled person to do about it. Here is why that teaching leads away from what we did. Here is the effect our difference produces. Here is the measurement.

And for combination objections, attack the link: why would the skilled person have looked at that second document at all, what would have motivated the combination, and are the two documents even technically compatible? Once you know the answer, combining anything looks obvious - that is hindsight, and it is worth naming.

What to actually do

• The test is the notional skilled person, not you.
• Answer with problem, teaching, effect and measurement - in that order.
• For combinations, attack the link, not the individual documents.
• A long-standing unsolved problem is genuine evidence.