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!
"Anticipation" has a narrow definition, as used in the examination process. It is not the dictionary definition that we use every day. The narrow definition is that the invention must be described in a single reference.
The combination of PTO "anticipation" and "obviousness" make up our everyday notion of an invention being "anticipated" by other, preceding inventions.
The combination of nuclear reactors, Closed cycle steam turbines and submarines -- is it "non-obvious?". . . . 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.
At first blush, I would tend to argue that the use of nuclear reactor to power the steam cycle on a submarine is obvious. But you raise a critical point, without emphasis. The "along with some ideas of his own" is often the inventive step that justifies the grant of a patent. In this case, perhaps it is technology that permits the shrinking of the reactor.
One test for obviousness is whether the "new" invention serves a long felt need. If it IS obvious, then why wasn't it done already?
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?
Yes. The benefit of hindsight is not permitted. One must argue from the incentives to combine, use or otherwise innovate. There are many many interesting examples. I'll draw one from the PDR, where a certain dose of a certain medication was indicated for the treatment of ulcers. Then, somebody figured out that in massively larger doses, this medication stifled weight gain. Old medicine, new use - PATENTABLE! The argument was that the existing art taught away from the new use. The PDR said DO NOT exceed dose, etc.
Seems like there was a Commissioner of Patents in the 19th century who said something like "Everything useful has already been invented."
And patents were mighty hard to come by in that era. The pendulum swings both ways. As history is our guide, today's environment of "easy" patent grants will not endure.