|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
| That has to do with obviousness. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Almost ever, and I would argue every invention is a combination of known
components.
Think of one thing that you agree is a patent worthy invention and then think of
its component parts. Were they separately known before?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT |
PJ explained that is has to do with obviousness, but if you didn't know that you
might not understand that short form of the answer.
The piece you quoted starts with "A utility patent claim is invalid if the
claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not
new..."
Of the different ways to invalidate a patent claim, two are closely related. One
is showing by prior art that it is not new. For that you need to find at least
one example of prior art that contains all of the elements of the claim in that
one example. You can't combine two examples that each contain some elements.
The other related way to invalidate a patent claim is by showing that it was
obvious at the time of the invention. Something can be obvious if not only were
the different elements of the claim known at the time, but also it would have
been obvious at the time to combine them in the way they are combined in the
claim.
If nobody had ever combined those elements into one thing before, the claim is
new. If those elements were used separately but an ordinary person skilled in
the art would not have thought to combine them in that way, then the claim is
also not obvious.
In finding prior part, if you can demonstrate something that contains every
element of a claim you have an easier time of invalidating the patent claim as
not being new. If instead you only find the elements distributed across multiple
items, you then have the more difficult task of proving the subjective concept
that it was "obvious" to put those elements together.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
