|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
Has to be obvious in view of the prior art. Just proclaiming that it is obvious
doesn't cut it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why bother with prior art? This patent is obvious. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Obviousness vs. prior usage - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Its only an application. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
<sarcasm>
We state that there are systems that query local data and return results. We
also state that there are systems that query remote data and return results.
Then, Eureka!, we *invent* a system that does the remote search *and* the local
search and *combines* the result?!
Brilliant!!!
Oh, wait, we store at least a partial query in a non-transitory medium. That's
got to be the secret sauce!
</>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|