The iTRIZ methodology can be useful in helping inventors to better understand structural and functional alternatives to the inventions they have conceived. Often the process of determining alternatives, if considered to any significant extent, is performed based on the limited knowledge and experience of one inventor or a small handful of co-inventors. However, the iTRIZ methodology, when applied properly and rigorously, offers the potential to help such inventors to develop alternatives to their inventions (or the core components of their inventions) in a more systematic way. In this manner, the methodology offers the promise of enabling inventors (and their patent attorneys) to define claims for inventions that can provide far greater breadth than might otherwise be possible with traditional methods (e.g., relying on “rule of thumb” approaches, or approaches developed in significant part from one’s own limited or relative personal experience).

Once these alternatives become available, it should be possible to conduct on a straight-forward basis any necessary prior art searches and novelty and obviousness determinations. The key advantage offered is the apparent increase in inventive breadth that systematic and rigorous application of the iTRIZ methodology offers. Of course, a written description of appropriate breadth must be crafted to support the additional number of claims on alternative embodiments of the inventions, but this task too should become more straight-forward and should aid the efforts of prior art researchers.

Lastly, one of the most significant advantages of an iTRIZ enhanced invention approach is the potential for creating a portfolio of patent rights that is both deeper and broader than might otherwise have been possible. These attributes of the methodology should enable inventors to create robust “patent fences” around their core inventions that achieve enhanced licensing value while also reducing the potential risks of having to defend against inter partes reviews before the US Patent & Trademark Office since with more patent assets to assert, the lower the likelihood that a challenger will have the monetary resources, time or interest in filing and sustaining such administrative actions.