- author = "William Samore",
- title = "Artificial Intelligence and the Patent System: Can a New Tool Render a Once Patentable Idea Obvious?",
- journal = "Syracuse Journal of Science and Technology Law",
- year = "2013",
- volume = "29",
- pages = "113--142",
- month = "Fall",
- keywords = "genetic algorithms, genetic programming",
-
URL = "
https://jost.syr.edu/artificial-intelligence-and-the-patent-system-can-a-new-tool-render-a-once-patentable-idea-obvious/",
-
URL = "
https://jost.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/Samore-Final.pdf",
- size = "30 pages",
-
abstract = "In the summer of 1956, leaders in the field of
computer science met at Dartmouth College and founded
the field of Artificial Intelligence. Since then, one
branch of Artificial Intelligence Genetic Programming
has progressed to the point where it could drastically
change the way that inventors design and create.
Genetic programs (described in more detail in section
III.B of this paper) operate by mimicking the
biological evolutionary process and have a wide variety
of applications. Antenna design, for example, is a
field where genetic programming could radically change
the nature and pace of innovation. The first antennas
were built in the late 1800 by Heinrich Hertz, and an
antenna with a specific shape can be designed to emit a
desired radiation pattern. As technology progressed,
computer programs were designed where an antenna
characteristics could be inputted to the computer
program, and the radiation pattern would be calculated
and displayed to the user. Now, computer programs have
gone one step further, making it possible to do the
reverse: input a desired radiation pattern and have the
computer program itself design the antenna. The
question that this note asks is, can changes in the
tools available to inventors render previously
patentable ideas obvious and therefore unpatentable? In
other words, should an antenna, which could only have
been designed by a human at one point but now can be
designed by a computer, be patentable?
Part II introduces the reader to patent law. Part II.A discusses patent law in general, and includes an explanation of the derivation of patent rights. Part II.B then explains the legal concept of obviousness the most relevant concept to patenting a device designed by a genetic program. Part III discusses relevant technological advances, particularly genetic programming. Next, Part IV argues that when genetic programming becomes widespread in a particular field, advances that could be created by the program should be deemed obvious. To provide a practical application for this argument, Part IV.B sets forth a widespread use test. Part V addresses anticipated contra",
- notes = "https://jost.syr.edu/ jost@law.syr.edu",
