Partner Haixia Lin, Counsel Jonathan Knight, Associate Steve Su and technology specialist Zain Sadiq explore how an AI's statements might be used as evidence of obviousness, in an article published by Law360.
Excerpt: For a patent to be valid, the critical question often is whether its invention was obvious, namely whether the differences between the invention and what existed before, i.e., the prior art, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, or POSITA, to which the invention pertains.
With the advent of artificial intelligence and the recent introduction of ChatGPT, we ask:
Can statements generated by AI be used to bolster a case for obviousness?
In other words, can AI-generated responses confirm that a difference between the invention and the prior art is so trivial as to be obvious?
