On this blog I have two types of entries. In Roman numerals (I,II etc) I discuss certain concepts and methods (Good Practices),w hich the TT practitioner should be familiar with. The straight numerals (1,2 ...) concern practical examples and cases and have exercises related to them.
Enough of concepts, methods and tricks. How do we apply all of this? Let’s take some examples:
I normally start with the “Technology” and then zoom in on Market, Company and Persons – and do so in an iterative fashion. The result is a file or dossier on the case, residing in your mind, on yo
ur computer hard disk and in your web browsers bookmarks.
The first thing to do is to find out: What is it? We may think we know what a truck trailer is, or can imagine what a method for remediation of sewage water is. But do you know what a “chiral compound for heteroaromatic bis-amides” is? Or can a plant extract be useful to fight cancer? How about nanotubes? Do you what legionella is? Whatever the challenge, I always check definitions:
- use JBEngine’s “What is it” Finder or its “Keyword Finder”
- use Kartoo, other “mindmap” search engines
- Use Google: images (and now video), News etc.
In the process you will save a few documents, bookmark a few web sites, make a few notes.
In the early check, you also need to ask What does it do (function of the invention)? And what do alternatives do? Now, we are getting to “prior art”. These questions relate to the next question: why should someone/we change from existing practice to using the invention? So we are trying to establish the Good part. I use
- JBEngine’s “Technology” Interface and use many of the submenus. You will soon learn to create complex search strings, building upon JBEngine’s already quite complex starters. Don’t insist on understanding all immediately. Don’t spend more than one hour at the most. You’ll come back to the question later.
- Check patent databases. Here I use their Advanced Search facilities. The keywords you use, you get from the What is it? notes, but you will want to improve your keyword list as you iterate. You may even want to go back and check your What is it? list. Use the tricks to mine the databases, paste your search results into Excel or Word; then sort and find out who the assignees are. There are three typical possibilities: either the inventors themselves, their institutions/universities or a company. I check the latest 50 or 100 whichever covers the latest 4-5 years best.
- Think Value Innovation Chart. Try to think of “parameters of comparison”. This information is normally buried in the inventor’s presentation, in terms of claims of superior functionality. Then try to think of how much better the invention may be or should be. Draw a preliminary chart.
- If the information is not in the inventor’s presentation, either ask him/her to go home and do it and/or interview them immediately. But don’t rely totally on their answer. Most inventors have lost overview, have fallen in love with their subject matter. Stopped looking for the competition years ago. What does that imply? Quite often that you should be patient, don’t tell the inventor that you know the above, but then slowly try to get to the core (“peel the onion”) of the matter. I play stupid: “I don’t understand. Please explain this to me in a different manner”. Please make a drawing with me, I say. I have an example of a Value Chart and ask them to help build the case for their invention.
- Earlier, I explained that there two alternatives. Either the invention does the same function in the same way as prior art, but more efficiently or in some other advantageous (and ask, for whom?) way- this is the functional substitution part. Or the invention solves the same problem as prior art, but in a substantially different way – this is substantial substitution. Classify the invention in these categories.
Comments