We'll sort of. The above still applies. The "invention" must be novel, and not an "obvious" extension of something that already exists. This is a term of art to describe what a person who is an expert, practiced in the field would judge as being obvious. Just because you haven't seen it before doesn't mean its novel, in filing patents.
Basically, you write an file a patent with the US patent office. Then, you have about 18 months before the patent is "published". At this point, your patent (as submitted) will be available for all to see, and possibly comment on (this is where people list patent pending). After this, a patent agent will then go over the claims in your patent and decide if your claims are novel, and should be protected with a patent. The agent will scour the literature to find closely related inventions to judge how novel your patent is. If they find an example of the same thing that is already known (i.e., some internet post of the same idea), or a magazine article suggesting your could do the same thing, then you are done and probably won't get all of your claims or even your patent. BUT, most of the time, people spend debating about what is novel. We are constantly fighting with the patent agents about novelty.
Your patent attorney will also do the literature search to make sure (I they are any good). You need to ask them about this, and you should do it yourself. When you file your patent, you will have to provide references to closely related "prior art".
One last thing. If you want to patent your invention, you can't talk about the specifics in public before the patent is published. That would be considered prior art, even though you were the one making the statements.
Okay, one more last thing: In my mind, the main reason you would want to patent your invention is to be able to license the technology to a large firm, where they can be assured that they will recoup their investment.
