Artificial Intelligence (AI) makes machines capable of learning from experience, or more so from data. In short, AI allows for machines to learn specific tasks through multiple exposures to processes, thousands and thousands of times. They are capable of dealing with massive data and able to possess smart algorithms to mimic traditionally human tasks. In the realm of patents, this begs the question: Can a machine legally be considered an inventor? In response to a petitioner's request to reconsider the USPTO's decision of refusal to vacate a Notice of Missing Part in U.S. Patent No. 16/524,350 , the USPTO strongly argued that AI should not be recognized as the inventor in a patent. The USPTO noted that, in 35 U.S.C., the law both explicitly and implicitly refers to inventors as “natural persons.” A couple of such instances include Section 101 stating “Whoever invents or discovers…,” where “whoever” suggests a natural person, and specific language in Section 112 where the law refers to "himself," "herself," "individual," and "person." The PTAB reasoned that granting inventorship to AI would contradict the patent statutes' text and spirit. With this reasoning, the Board affirmed the USPTO decision in denying the applicant request to vacate the Notice of Missing Part. For a full illustration of this subject matter, refer to this article on IPWatchdog. Randy Nguyen is a current 2L at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law.
1 Comment
|
Archives
November 2021
Categories |