Beschuitje with or without patent?

Patent on notch rusk

We Dutch are quite a strange people. Who gets it into their heads to want a brittle rusk with sprinkles for breakfast in bed. That is asking for trouble. And before that rusk falls apart and the crumbs can be found all over the bed, it is a challenge to get the rusk in one piece from the tight packaging. Fortunately, there's a solution to that: a notch on the edge of the rusk. Thanks to that notch, we can enjoy a whole rusk. A brilliant invention in all its simplicity. The entire Dutch rusk eating community agrees on that.
But at the same time I hear the question "How can you get a patent for something as simple as a notch? Surely anyone could have thought of that?' And that is exactly what Haust also argued in court.

Patent not valid?

According to Haust, the notch solution was obvious and thus the patent was not valid. Haust pointed to patents on, for example, vegetable chips that have a hole in the middle. According to Haust, the obvious solution to rusks was to make the notch at the edge so that the toppings would not fall through the hole. Moreover, Haust pointed to patents on several baking products that also have notches on the edges. Thus, according to Haust, the solution was not inventive. Inventiveness, however, is one of the requirements for obtaining a patent (also called a patent).
The judge saw no indication in the existing patents to arrive at this very solution. The baking products that have a notch on the side are not wrapped in tight foil. In any case, nowhere in the patents is it stated that the notch on the edge serves to make it easier to remove the baked goods from the package. Thus, the skilled person looking for a solution to remove rusks from a tight package will not get that idea from reading those patents, according to the judge. The judge also did not see that a person skilled in the art would consult a patent on vegetable chips in the search for a solution to the rusk removal problem.

Inventiveness and patents: the power of simplicity

Temples' invention seems simple at first glance. Yet it is inventive. An invention does not have to be "rocket science" to get a patent on it. Many brilliant inventions are deadly simple, when you look at them in retrospect. Consider the paperclip; a single bent iron wire.

In hindsight, something quickly seems very simple and logical. But you just have to think of it! And isn't that the power of a good solution? Simple and very effective. So don't immediately think that your solution is too simple for a patent. It may well be a brilliant invention.