Here&#x27;s the theory about what&#x27;s supposed to be patentable:<p>Statutory material: No matter how brilliant, a poem, law of nature, mathematical algorithm or computer program is supposedly not patentable. Lots of details at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uspto.gov&#x2F;web&#x2F;offices&#x2F;pac&#x2F;mpep&#x2F;s2106.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uspto.gov&#x2F;web&#x2F;offices&#x2F;pac&#x2F;mpep&#x2F;s2106.html</a><p>Novelty: It has to be new. This is where prior art comes in.<p>Non-obviousness: This is the test for patenability you&#x27;re talking about. It can be hard to judge obviousness in hindsight. There are so many specialty areas today that it&#x27;s unreasonable to expect the patent office to be able to determine what would be obvious to an ordinary practitioner in every area of invention.