solved Student #1 BJ The four basic requirements an invention must

Student #1 BJ
The four basic requirements an invention must satisfy to be eligible for patentability are (1) the invention must be one of the types specified by statute as patentable subject matter (namely, a utility, design, or plant patent), (2) the invention must be useful (if the application is for a utility patent), (3) the invention must be novel, (4) the invention must be nonobvious. Deborah E. Bouchoux, Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets, Section 17-4 (5th ed. 2018). Nonobvious means that they invention cannot be related or too similar to another invention that has already been created. To satisfy the nonobvious component of a patent, a person within the scope of the invention cannot already identify invention as something previously used or made. In Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court set standard in determining nonobviousness. The rule advanced in this case is the Federal Circuit requires that a party demonstrate some link, or nexus, between the secondary characteristic and the invention. Secondary considerations/characteristics include commercial success, long-felt need and failure of others, commercial acquiescence, and copying. Id. at 17-4e.
On March 16th 2013, when a patent was filed, if the invention was obvious to any people involved within the scope of that invention’s use, it could not be patented. Prior to March 16th, 2013, when an invention was made, if it was obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertained, it could not be patented. Id. at 17-4e. The difference between the new rules is before March 2013, it was when the invention was actually made. And now, after March 2013, it is when the invention application is actually filed. The first to file system is when the prior art is measured by the date of application. The first to invent system is when the prior art is measured by the date of invention. The first to file system would be better because once the application has been filed, that cannot be used even if the invention has not been created yet. It may take longer for it to actually be made so having the application filed and creating its existence would make it less of a hassle for someone else to take that invention. The information that publicly exists prior to the filing date will bar the application. Id. at 17-4e.
Yes, I think the patent system comports with Biblical worldviews. God wanted people to create and invent new things, as long as it was honest work. Let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may have something that is important to share with anyone in need. Ephesians 4:28, (English Standard Version). It is not wrong to want to create new things for profit, however, we should keep in mind that the most important thing to remember is that these are just materials in the world, and God should be held over these materials that exist. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on Earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6:19-21, (English Standard Version).
————————————————————–
Student #2 KAB
What are the 4 basic requirements for patentability?
According to Deborah E. Bouchoux, the four basic requirements that must be met at the time of application for an invention to receive patent protection are:
“1.  The invention must be one of the types specified by statute as patentable subject matter (namely, a utility, design, or plant patent).
“2.  The invention must be useful (if the application is for a utility patent).
“3.  The invention must be novel.
“4.  The invention must be nonobvious.”   
Of these four requirements, the last one is most difficult hurdle to overcome.  Nonobvious, in patent law, means that when someone registers for a patent, an ordinary person from the general public, lacking any type of special technological skills, should be able to examine the invention and be able to distinguish it from any other pre-existing invention that has already received a patent.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court directly addressed the nonobvious issue on its KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) decision which reaffirmed its previous decision in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).  The Graham court stated three ways to deal with a nonobvious determination: (1) determine the prior art’s scope and content; (2) ascertain the differences, if any, between the prior art and invention in question; and (3) resolve the amount of ordinary skill the general public needs to understand in the prior art.  The KSR court determined that the Federal Circuit Court has erred when it rigidly applied the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test to the Graham standard, thus providing for a less formal way to address this requirement.  USPTO, 2141 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-10.2019], https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html, Visited on July 3, 2021.
One of the most significant changes to U.S. patent law occurred when Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in September 2011.  This took that United States off of its island of an unique first-to-invent system and placed it within the international standard of a global first-to-file system.  This change became effective on March 16, 2013.  The main difference between the two system is that the former rested on a complicated process of having to prove which invention was created first, while the latter rests on which inventor filed a patent application first.
Not only did this new patent registration procedure create a seamless worldwide system, making it easier for inventors from different nations to register their patents the same way no matter where they decide to do so, it also made it generally easier, and much less expensive, for U.S. patent registration seekers to challenge other U.S. patent registration seekers if there is a similarity controversy surrounding whose patent is given priority, replacing the interference proceeding with a derivation proceeding.  
We are asked if the patent system in alignment with the Biblical Worldview as it is articulated within Scripture.  TO answer this, I am led to I Corinthians 9:10 (NIV) which reads, in part: “[W]hoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.”  I take this to understand that there is ownership in the fruits of one’s labor.  And, since invention is a form of labor, one is permitted to protect any profit that comes from that invention.