. . . I seem to recall that a federal District Judge overturned the Needie string trimmer patent on grounds that the invention was "obvious" since any gardener would think to wrap a wire or string around an electric motor mounted to a handle in order to make a trimmer.
True or not, that story really rankled me, and that's when I got the notion that maybe a registration system was, perhaps, better.
The hurdle for "usefulness" is very low. Stupid and boring games can be patented. As long is there is a detectable (and legal) use, the usefulness hurdle is met. The substantive issues typically raised by an Examiner are "anticipation" and "obviousness." "Anticipation" exists when the the invention disclosed in your application is taught by a single writing elsewhere. That single writing could be another patent, a catalog, or any other document that one might find in a library.
"Obviousness" is different, and is rather hard to nail down. I don't know the string trimmer case, and would need to read the decision before forming an opinion on its value to the patent system, and to society as a whole. The test of obviousness is not whether ALL gardeners would think to use a swinging string to trim the lawn; it is whether such a device is obvious (without hindsight) to people skilled in the art. I would also say that a "gardener" is not the only hypothetical person "skilled in the art" of designing motorized garden implements. You see, what is obvious to an organic chemist is not understood by most people; so the test of "obviousness" has to consider the skills of the minds that compete with THIS inventor.
There have been patent registration systems, BTW, and there are some wide ranges of patent practice in existence today. I don't know how those systems operate in total, but my guess is that the scope of rights granted, and the enforcement mechanism that supports a "registration" system are radically different from the scope and enforcement under a patent examination system. For example, perhaps the "presumption of validity" is gone, perhaps the patentee does not have rights against all comers, etc. Generally, in a registration system, the patent is easier to overturn in court -- so the string trimmer guy would have been LESS likely to prevail if the patent he had was obtained without examination.
Imagine the cost to society if patents obtained without examination could be asserted as presumptively valid, and against all comers. My evil neighbor would take out patents on the things that I profit from, and would sue me to make me stop. Adding insult to injury, it would be MY burden to prove why the evil neighbor isn't entitled to enforcement of that patent against me. Yikes!
Anyway, it is nice to meet you. If there are any overarching lessons in my rambling, one it is that the systems we bemoan are complex, and another is that we should endeavor to understand a system thoroughly before we advocate changing an isolated part of it.
I do believe our patent system has done more to make the U.S. the great nation it is than anything else. Useful inventiveness should be rewarded and encouraged, as the Constitution states.
"Anticipation" exists when the the invention disclosed in your application is taught by a single writing elsewhere. That single writing could be another patent, a catalog, or any other document that one might find in a library.That bolded statement of yours really intrigues me since you're obviously very learned on the subject! No doubt it does exist under the scenario you describe, but if no single such writing exists, was an invention "not anticipated" for examination purposes?
For a semi-fictional example, at the pertinent time, nuclear reactors had existed for decades. The controlled fission reactons produced heat. Closed cycle steam turbines had also existed for decades, as did submarines. There were many writings, etc., on them all, and their benefits and limitations were pretty well known. Then an inventive Navy guy named Hyman Rickover (maybe some fiction here, but it personalizes the scenario) put the existing elements together along with a few ideas of his own to come up with the nuclear submarine.
To me, that's the essence of innovation, and such a contraption should be deserving of a patent, especially under the "anticipation" element you described. Jules Verne's Nautilus description was not "enabling" nor did the necessary "components" exist at the time of his writings. In retrospect, a patent examiner might deny a nuclear powered sub patent because the necessary components pre-existed and only awaited a "need" for it to be "obvious" for somebody like Rickover to put it all together.
Just theoretically speaking, is a patent examiner somehow precluded from using hindsight to determine obviousness as well as anticipation in judging the merit of an application?
After all, you could argue that the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Technology(?) and the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics are two "writings" that pretty much cover the waterfront on thermomechanical gizmos. Add the McGraw-Hill Electronics Engineers' Handbook, the McGraw-Hill Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, The Merck Manual, and a few other references, and you have "writings" that cover the whole of what mankind knows technically, gizmo, and otherwise.
Seems like there was a Commissioner of Patents in the 19th century who said something like "Everything useful has already been invented." If a patent examiner is able to "reverse engineer" a claimed invention to reject it, that Commissioner wouldn't sound so silly today. I know I've struggled seemingly endlessly with problems that were incredibly simple once I could look back on them after having found the solution.
It has been an immense pleasure meeting you! I wish you the very best in all your endeavors and the enjoyment of life!