你的專利有用嗎？

你的專利有用嗎？

這是一篇探討“實用性”的文章：

To obtain a patent, an invention must be useful. An inherently inoperative invention lacks the necessary utility, and thus is not entitled to a patent.（沒有“產業利用性”的話是不能得到專利）

Ms. Cortright有個治療禿頭的發明，被審查委員以不具“實用性”核駁，原因滿有趣的：Specifically, the Patent Office presumed that her baldness treatment claims were suspect because baldness is generally considered“incurable”。禿頭真的是incurable的嗎？還好我沒有這種困擾。最後PTO因Ms. Cortright 缺乏臨床實驗證據（had failed to present any clinical evidence）而核駁該專利。

On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (an appeal board within the Patent Office) clarified that Ms. Cortright was not required to submit clinical evidence of Bag Balm�s� effectiveness to establish her invention�s utility. All that patent law requires for the purpose of establishing utility is a credible assertion, as assessed from an ordinarily skilled professional�s perspective, that the invention works for its intended purpose.

Board則認為要實用性的不需要臨床實驗證據，僅需要“credible assertion”。但卻以不符合enablement拒絕Ms. Cortright的專利。

Reviewing other patents for baldness treatment, the Court concluded that a claim for restoring hair growth was not a promise of a full head of hair.（治禿頭的發明也不需要a promise of a full head of hair，有長就好）

As this case illustrates, the utility requirement is a relatively easy requirement to meet. You must show only that your invention is capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected in the particular field of technology.

我覺得重點在“capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected”，實用性的要求是滿低的標準對吧，不過我現在才知道。

最後，摘錄一段很有趣的句子：
Do you think the panel’s ruling in this case was affected by the fact that each judge (Chief Judge Mayer, and Circuit Judges Newman and Rader) has a full head of hair?