The criteria required for a patent are the invention must be useful,
new, non-obvious, which means it can't be the next logical
progression to an already patented design. a It must be patentable,
meaning new and useful. The judge ruled that the defendant
infringed on her patent because his system was nearly identical to the
plaintiffs. a Still, the judge also determined that the plaintiff's patent
did not meet the requirements for a pantent. a The plaintiff's online
ordering system was not novel and was not non-obvious. a Online
ordering is not a new process. a It has been around for years before
this case and just making obvious improvements to the process is
obvious.
I agree with the judge's decision. a I feel the defendant did infringe on
the plaintiff's patent since his process was nearly identical to the
plaintiffs and I also agree that the plaintiff's patent did not meet the
requirements of a patent.
