Sufficiency of Patent Disclosure Rests on Bargain Rather Than Guessing


Gambling by Alan Cleaver licensed under CC BY 2.0


The patent system is based on a “bargain” between the inventor and the public: the inventor receives exclusive rights in his or her new and useful invention for a limited period in exchange for complete disclosure of the invention to the public.


Consistent with this policy rationale, the inventor is required to disclose everything that is essential for the invention to function properly. In particular, the patent disclosure must define the nature of the invention, and must describe how the invention is put into operation. A failure to meet the first condition would invalidate the patent application for ambiguity, while a failure to meet the second condition would invalidate it for insufficiency.


To meet the sufficiency requirements, the patent disclosure must correctly and fully answer each of the two questions: (1) “What is your invention?” and (2) “How does it work?”


Further, the disclosure must enable a person skilled in the field of the invention to produce the invention using only the instructions contained in the disclosure and to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor did. In essence, insufficiency is a technical attack on the validity of a patent, and would succeed when the skilled person could not put the invention into practice. For example, obscuring the true invention and leaving the skilled reader guessing may amount to insufficient disclosure.


Thus, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada, a key question would be:


“Is the public getting what it ought to be getting in exchange for exclusive monopoly rights?”


As one would expect, insufficient patent disclosure that fails to uphold the inventor’s end of the bargain will result in a voidable patent.



Simple ≠ Obvious, Just Ask The Person Skilled In The Art

Simple ≠ Obvious - just ask the person skilled in the art

Simple & Obvious by
Emma Jane Hogbin Westby
licensed under CC BY 2.0


A new and useful invention is patentable only if it is not obvious to an unimaginative person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Obviousness assessment is based on the “state of the art” and the common general knowledge of the skilled person at the claim date of the invention.


At the core of obviousness analysis is the identification of the “inventive concept” of the claimed invention, and whether the difference between the inventive concept and the state of the art would require the skilled person to take any inventive step or conduct arduous searching and testing.


The obviousness analysis may involve consideration of a number of factors, including:

  • The interpretation of patent claim at issue.
  • The hypothetical skilled person and the common knowledge of this person.
  • The prior art and the climate or trends in the relevant field.
  • Any motivation at relevant time to combine or modify prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
  • The time and effort involved in the claimed invention.
  • Whether the claimed invention was obvious to try.
  • Commercial success of the claimed invention.


The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has cautioned against relying on hindsight when challenging a patent for obviousness:


Every invention is obvious after it has been made, and to no one more so than an expert in the field. Where the expert has been hired for the purpose of testifying, his infallible hindsight is even more suspect. It is so easy, once the teaching of a patent is known, to say, “I could have done that”; before the assertion can be given any weight, one must have a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why didn’t you?”


Even if an invention is directed to a particular combination of well-known parts, the combination itself is not necessarily obvious. In addition, the simplicity and easiness of an invention does not render it obvious. After all, a mere scintilla of invention is sufficient to support the validity of a patent.