Which Is Not a Patent Eligibility Requirement? Answer and Explanation

Correct answer

B. Revolutionary.

An invention does not have to transform an industry or produce dramatic social change to qualify for a patent. “Revolutionary” is not a formal statutory requirement. A modest improvement may be patentable if it satisfies the applicable legal requirements.

Why the other choices matter

• Novel: The claimed invention must be new relative to the prior art. A claim generally cannot be patented if every required element was already disclosed in a qualifying earlier reference.
• Non-obvious: Even when no single reference contains the entire claim, the differences from existing knowledge must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field at the relevant time.
• Useful: A U.S. utility patent must concern an invention with a specific, credible, practical utility rather than a purely speculative result.

Other requirements matter too. The claimed subject matter must fall within patent-eligible categories and avoid judicial exceptions as applied by current law. The application must describe the invention clearly enough to satisfy disclosure requirements, and the claims must define the requested protection.

Eligibility and patentability are not identical terms

OpenStax uses “patent eligibility” broadly for the requirements represented by the choices. In modern U.S. practice, subject-matter eligibility often means the narrower threshold associated with 35 U.S.C. §101, while novelty and non-obviousness are analyzed separately. The expected answer remains the same: “revolutionary” is not required.