Poll suggests that about one-third of scientists do not think their research is especially novel, another third do not believe their research has practical utility
Members of the Science Advisory Board are almost equally divided as to which criterion would be most difficult to fulfill when applying for a patent based upon their research.
35% of the 1,361 respondents to a recent instant poll thought that they would be hard put to demonstrate the novelty of their invention, while 34% claimed they would have trouble proving the non-obviousness of it.
The remaining 30% stated that explaining the utility of their intellectual contribution would be a major stumbling block to filling out a patent application.
One striking interpretation of these results is that the scientific community does not view their research contributions through a uniform filter.
For instance, had 90% of respondents claimed that they would have had difficulty with the concept of non-obviousness, one could make the assumption that these people think their research is unique and useful even though they believe that it is also readily apparent.
Instead, this poll suggests that about one-third of scientists do not think their research is especially novel, another third do not believe their research has practical utility and the remaining third do not feel their research is non-obvious to others in their field.
"Legally, the concept of non-obviousness is the most complex of these three patentability requirements because it is quite broad and subject to inexact interpretation," claims Tamara Zemlo, director of the Science Advisory Board.
However, scientists appear to be questioning the value of their research using the additional metrics of novelty and utility.
