Is it patentable?

You be the examiner.

Case #4 - Two devices solve the same problem: dogs eating too fast. One has “priority” over the other.

The two devices (“Maze” and “Pie”) solve the same problem: dogs eating too fast.

They both do it by putting food in a space that’s too cramped for gobbling food.

Since “Maze” came out first, it has a chance at claiming the broad idea of a dog bowl with cramped food compartments.

We say that “Maze” has “priority” over “Pie.”

This means that if “Pie” tries to get a patent, an examiner can use “Maze” to foil the attempt.

But suppose “Pie” tried to get a patent for just the idea of a dog bowl with pie-slice compartments?

An examiner can’t use “Maze” to prove that “Pie” already existed.

“Maze” could be used for obviousness, by itself or with some other reference. But this would require a story that starts with “Maze” and leads naturally into Pie’s pie-slice compartments.

Try thinking of such a story. It’s harder than it sounds.

“Pie” also has a secret weapon. After all, it’s not really a dog bowl at all. It’s really just a suction pad with a propeller on top. Sure, its intended use is to have its foot planted in a bowl. But patents are based on what the thing is, not what it’s for.

If “Pie” wants a patent, it might help to not define the invention in terms of a dog bowl at all.

Just imagine how hard it would be to find a propeller that both can’t spin and that sticks to surfaces by suction.

Given the priority of “Maze,” is “Pie” patentable?

Disclaimer:

The O&R “Is it patentable?” blog is educational and provides general information about patent law.  It provides no legal advice or conclusions.  O&R uses publicly available information about the products described in these posts and has no relationship with the manufacturers, sellers, or distributors of these products.  Reading this blog and participating in voting on the case studies does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and O&R.