Nonobviousness is a patent-law requirement that an invention must not be an obvious variation of prior art.
The requirement asks whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field at the relevant time. It is separate from whether the invention is new.
Why nonobviousness matters
Patent law does not reward every small variation. Nonobviousness helps prevent patents from covering routine combinations, predictable substitutions, or ordinary design choices that skilled people would have made without inventive contribution.
This requirement is a major reason patent prosecution and patent litigation often focus on technical comparisons, expert evidence, and how earlier references would have been understood.
Where it appears
Nonobviousness appears in patent applications, office actions, patent appeals, invalidity defenses, expert reports, prior-art analysis, and patent licensing disputes.
How it differs from nearby terms
Nonobviousness is different from novelty. Novelty asks whether the claimed invention is new. Nonobviousness asks whether the new difference is still too predictable or routine to justify a patent.
It is also different from a patent claim, which defines the legal scope of the invention being tested.
Practical example
A patent claim combines two known parts in a way that earlier references already suggested. Even if no single prior-art reference shows the exact combination, the claim may face a nonobviousness rejection.
Related terms
Quick check
An invention can be new but still obvious. Novelty and nonobviousness are related, but they test different patentability problems.