|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Obviousness can be proven by prior art too.
It really doesn't matter. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
As I undetstand it, prior art is what was known publicly on
the subject, before the patent. This prior art may be used to
show the patented invention was not new 'novelty' or
obvious.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Quick and simplified explanation: Prior art is used to show
obviousness. Obviousness means that the exact thing in the
patent claim wasn't done before, but that the prior art that
is being cited is so close that it would've been obvious to
make the changes necessary to reach whatever is in the patent
at issue. So they're talking about the same thing, just from
different perspectives. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|