Patenting AI assisted inventions – is a new obviousness standard required?

2018-11-09

PATENTINGAI-ASSISTEDINVENTIONS–ISANEWOBVIOUSNESSSTANDARD
REQUIRED?

YUHENGTOMZHANG*
ROBIC,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

OneofthereasonswhyArtificialIntelligence(AI)hasreceivedsomuchrecentattentionisthatit
canbeusedtosolveproblemsandmakenewdiscoveriesbeyondwhathumans,bythemselves,
werecapableofbefore.ExamplesofusingAIincludedesigningbettercomponentsinairplanes†
andmakingdiscoveriesofnewdrugsandmedicaltreatments‡.
Conceivingnewsolutionstoproblemsandmakingnewdiscoveriesinevitablyleadstoadiscussion
ofseekingIPprotection.Generally,patentsarebestsuitedforusefulandfunctionalsolutionsor
discoveries.However,shouldtheprocessofinventingusingtheassistanceofAIbeviewed
differentlyfromthe“traditional”inventionprocess?Furthermore,howshouldtheinventivenessof
anewsolutionordiscoverybeevaluateddependingontheamountofassistanceprovidedbyan
AIsystem.
Wecanimaginethefollow4theoreticalscenariosinwhichahumaninteractswithanAIsystemin
ordertoconceiveanewsolutionormakeanewdiscovery:
Scenario1:Thehumanpersondesignsand/orbuildsanAIsystemorappliesextensive
customizationtotheAIsystemandthenusestheAIsystemtoobtainausefulandpractical
result;
Scenario2:ThehumanpersonappliesanamountofparameterizationtotheAIsystemthatis
non-trivialbutalsonotasextensiveasinScenario1.ThiscustomizedAIsystemisapplied,
forexample,toalargesetoftrainingdatatoobtainausefulandpracticalresult;
Scenario3:Thehumanpersonusesapre-existingAIsystembutexercisesanamountof
judgmenttoselectthedatathatisprovidedtotheAIsystemtoobtainausefulandpractical
result;
Scenario4:Thehumanpersonfeedsahighly-capableAIsystemasettrainingdatawithoutthe
humanapplyingmuchjudgmentintheparameterizationoftheAIsystem,norinthe
preselectionofthedata.TheAIsystemprocessesthistrainingdataandproducesauseful
andpracticalresult.

©CIPS,2018.*YuhengTomZhangisalawyerandapatentagentforROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentand
trademarkagents.
†https://www.autodesk.com/customer-stories/airbus‡https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05267-x

2

Tel:514987-6242Tel:418653-1888

AssumingthattheamountofinventivecontributionmadebythehumanandbytheAIsystemcan
beeasilysplitupandquantified,thesefourscenarioscanbegraphicallyrepresentedasfollows:

Scenario1isfairlysimple.Thehumanpersoncanbeunderstoodashavingmadethebulkofthe
inventivecontribution.
Scenario4isattheotherextremeandalsoappearsfairlysimple.Sincethehumandoesnot
providemuchjudgmentineithercustomizingtheAIsystemorintheselectionofthedataused,we
canconcludethattheAIsystemdoesmostoftheheavyliftingtogeneratetheusefulresult.
Scenarios2and3liesomewherebetweenscenarios1and4.Forthesescenarios,itisreasonable
toconcludethathumanpersonhasmadeanon-trivialcontributionbyeithercustomizingtheAI
systemorpreselectingthedata.ItisalsoreasonabletoconcludethattheAIsystemhasalso
contributedinanon-trivialwayinproducingtheusefulresult.
Thesedifferentscenariosraisethequestionofhowwearetocharacterizethe“inventiveness”
whenatleastaportionofthesolutionordiscoveryismadeusingtheassistanceofAI.More
importantly,atwhatpointdowedeterminethattherehasbeensufficientinventiveactivitysoas
therenderthatactivitynon-obviousandthereforethemeetthecriteriaofforbeinggrantedpatent
protection.
InCanada,thetestsetoutbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainApotexv.Sanofi§remainsthe
leadingtestforevaluatingnon-obviousness.Thetestisasfollows:
(1)(a)Identifythenotional“personskilledintheart”;
(b)Identifytherelevantcommongeneralknowledgeofthatperson;
(2)Identifytheinventiveconceptoftheclaiminquestionorifthatcannotreadilybedone,construe
it;
§ApotexInc.v.Sanofi-SynthelaboCanadaInc.2008SCC61
Scenario1Scenario2/3Scenario4
Inventivecontribution
HumanAITotal”Obviousness”Threshold

3

Tel:514987-6242Tel:418653-1888

(3)Identifywhat,ifany,differencesexistbetweenthemattercitedasformingpartofthe“stateof
theart”andtheinventiveconceptoftheclaimortheclaimasconstrued;
(4)Viewedwithoutanyknowledgeoftheallegedinventionasclaimed,dothosedifferences
constitutestepswhichwouldhavebeenobvioustothepersonskilledintheartordotheyrequire
anydegreeofinvention?
Takingforgrantedthatthedifferencebetweentheinventiveconceptofaclaimedinventionand
the“stateoftheart”(i.e.thecollectionofpertinentpriorart)canbereadilyidentified,alargepart
ofapplyingthistestdependsonstep1ofidentifyingthepersonskilledintheartandtherelevant
commongeneralknowledgeofthatperson.Itwillbeappreciatedthatobviousnessdependson
comparingthedifferencesidentifiedinstep3againsttheknowledgeofthisnotionalpersonskilled
intheart.
Thepersonskilledintheart,theknowledgeofthispersonandtheirinventiveprowesshasbeen
addressedmanytimesbytheCanadiancourts.InMerck&Co.v.PharmascienceInc.**perjustice
Hughesatparagraph35:
InCanada,the“personofordinaryskillintheart”isthehypotheticalpersontowhomthe
patentisaddressed.[…]Thepersonofordinaryskillintheartisdeemedtobe
unimaginativeanduninventive,butatthesametimeisunderstoodtohaveanordinarylevel
ofcompetenceandknowledgeincidentaltothefieldtowhichthepatentrelates(i.e.the
commongeneralknowledge)andtobereasonablydiligentinkeepingupwithadvances.
Thecommongeneralknowledgeisthatknowledgegenerallyknownbypersonsskilledin
therelevantartattherelevanttime.Accordingly,itcanincludeknowledgepassedamongst
peopleinthefield,includinginformationthatisnotinpublishedform.Likewise,not
everythingthathasbeenpublishediswithinthecommongeneralknowledge.
PriortothewidespreadadoptionofAIsystems,thethresholdthatneedstobemetinordertoshow
non-obviousisfairlyeasytodefine,albeitoftendifficultytoapplyinpractice.Ifthedifference
betweentheinventiveconceptandthestateoftheartwouldnothavebeenobvioustothe
unimaginativeanduninventivepersonofordinaryskill,thenthethresholdfornon-obviousnessis
met.Returningtothefiguregraphicallyrepresentinghypotheticalscenariosofan“inventive”
process,thehorizontalthresholdlineinpurpleoverlaidonthechartrepresentsanotionalthreshold
atwhichthedifferenceoverthestateoftheartnolongerbecomestothepersonskilledintheart.
Thiscouldrepresenttheamountof“inventive”activitythatwouldmeetstep4ofthetestunder
Sanofi.
ThedifficultybecomesdefiningthisthresholdwhenanAIsystemplaysapartinconceivingor
discoveringthatnon-obvious“difference”.WhereAIisinvolved,shouldthenotionofthepersonof
ordinaryskilledintheartbesomehowdifferent?Alternatively,doeswhatisunderstoodas“being
obvious”tothatpersonsomehowdifferentbecausetheinvolvementofAI?Thatis,shouldthe
thresholdsomehowbemoved?
Scenario1stillremainsfairlystraightforwardtoresolve.Theamountof“inventive”activity
attributabletothepersonindependentlyoftheAIsystemissogreatthatitsurpassesthenon-
obviousthreshold.
**Merck&Co.v.PharmascienceInc2010FC510,).

4