BEEM PATENT LAW FIRM, CHICAGO, IL, USA, TEL. 312-201-0011

People and even courts sometimes distinguish between pioneer patents and improvement patents, but the distinction is primarily for convenience of reference in discussion and conceptualization; it is not grounded in the patent statutes.  In other words, for an invention to be patentable, it need only meet the requirements of novelty, nonobviousness and utility, and the technical compliance with the patent laws, rules and regulations.  There are no separate legal categories for "pioneer" or "improvement" patents.  The patents issued by the Patent Office are not "branded" with such designations, although, of course, the extent of the innovation (rather than any arbitrary designation) may permit varying ranges of equivalents.

There is something about the law, especially the law of patents, that invites arbitrary designations, and the temptation must be resisted.  Abraham Lincoln once famously asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg."  Townsend Engineering, 1 USPQ2d at 1990 n. 7.  See Lincoln & Patents (in this web site).  Each case must be considered on its own facts, rather than on the basis of twists in terminology.

Particularly concerning mechanical inventions, it almost may be said that there are no entirely new technologies, instead, as the courts formerly said, there are only new combinations of old elements, and about these, the courts in former times were skeptical.  But the Honorable Howard Markey, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, put the lie to the myth of unpatentability of "mere combinations."  Markey observed that almost all inventions are merely combinations of old elements.  Devices such as wheels, levers, pulleys, screws, springs, inclined planes, gears and the like have been known for centuries.  See Paper Clips & Patents (in this web site).  Thus, the tests for patentability of "combinations" or "improvements" are the same as the tests for any other invention:  Is it new?  Can it be said that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made?  See 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112.  If the legal requirements are satisfied, the invention is patentable.