decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Thoroughness versus brevity... | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thoroughness versus brevity...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:48 AM EST
The PTO has a limited amount of time to inspect each patent (I believe it's
around a day per patent).

In that day the patent examiner must not only decide on obviousness and so
forth, but must determine whether there is invalidating prior art not only in
the millions of existing patents, but in the trade press and other public
sources. Keep in mind the language used in the patent may differ drastically
from that used in the prior art.

SO the short answer is that at the time a patent is issued, the PTO *does*
believe that the patent is "worthy". Unfortunately it lacks the
resources to give an 100% accurate determination.

In the event of a re-examination, usually a particular party will have asked for
the re-examination because they have an interest in seeing the patent
invalidated. For that purpose they will produce a shopping list of invalidating
evidence, possibly the result of hundreds or thousands of hours of research.

Generally there's no guarantee that a re-examination request will actually
invalidate a patent. I believe Groklaw referenced a story a few days ago showing
that in most cases the claims of a patent are reduced, not eliminated, so any
pending court actions would still be necessary.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )