Patenting of the Revolutionary Tablet Computer - Essay Example

The PaperTab combines thin-film display and thin-film input that incorporates computing technologies made possible by the intuitive interaction design in that the plastic displays are transformational in terms of interaction as they can allow interaction of humans with electronic paper as they are thinner and offer standard glass displays.
For patency to subsist there must be some conditions that must be met according to the regulations set by the agency concerned with patency in Canada. These three requirements for the patentability of a product include the fact that the product must have what is known as a novelty, inventive steps, and industrial application.

According to The World Intellectual Property Organization (2002), novelty questions outlines that support the invention claimed by a particular person or body, and is important that the courts or law enforcement agencies make a comparison between the state of the art to the invention itself. Under this, there is often the problem of establishing what has been referred to as ‘state of the art’ and the law provides that all matters or patents must be made public inclusive of those that are still pending. It is required that persons intending to patent a product must also disclose their time and geographical limits while for international patents, it was a requirement that the translation requirements are followed and applied to the letter.

Public disclosure of the product of the patent in this case the phone must be in a manner that makes it available to the public and must be sufficiently clear to everyone (Berman 2002). It is also important to note that the disclosure of the patent must be sufficiently appreciated by all those concerned whereby it should be ensured that if the procedure which ends up producing the substance is part of the state of the art, so is the substance made by the procedure (Norman, 2011). Further, there must be a distinction drawn between the disclosure of a product and the disclosure for use.

The requirement of the Inventive Step for patentability is provided and incorporates the obviousness test as provided by the common law test of the Cripps Test (Slusky, 2007). It should be found whether a reasonable man on whom patent law should apply would in general knowledge have come up without any difficulty to the solution brought forward by the patent. The parties involved in patenting must identify the inventive concept whereby it should be assumed that a person is a normally skilled but unimaginative person with skills in the art and with the common knowledge in the art at the date that is a priority.

It is also important that any differences are identified between the invention and the matter that is claimed to be already known whereby it is questioned whether the differences are so obvious to anyone skilled in the art or whether they would have required an invention.
Under Industrial Application, the important factor is to find out whether the ideas came before their time, or that the patented product was used or made in the industry. This is regardless of whether the product in this case the phone was made for profit or gain but excludes personal or private activities and determines the usefulness or utility of the product and its technical effect.

From the foregoing argument, the flexible phone must be acknowledged and patented by any person who may try to copy it for commercial gain. The developers and the facilitators must make efforts that are aimed at patenting it so that they gain from the efforts that they have made in the development of the phone. Patenting of the revolutionary tablet computer that is thin and has interactive flexible sheets of paper should ensure that the three factors of patentability are met according to the Canadian laws of patents. It must ensure that it is publicly disclosed and meets the obvious test as well as the novelty test. From the foregoing argument and the video about the phone, it can be deduced that unless the phone meets the three criteria for patenting, then any manufacturer or producer can go ahead and produce the same without the risk of legal complications arising out of the patents. Read More