
	Where results make sense

Topic: Prior art

Related Topics

Patent

Novelty (patent)

Doctrine of equivalents

Peanut butter and jelly sandwich

Huerth

Jackelope

List of largest US universities by enrollment

Ayporos

Deficit spending

Chinese history

Jim Miller

Bottled water

Selmasongs

PKa

Robot rock

In the News (Fri 27 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Prior art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In most patent laws, prior art is expected to provide a description sufficient to inform the average worker in the field (or the man skilled in the art), published in fixed form and made available in public libraries.
		To assess the validity of a patent application, patent offices explore the prior art that was disclosed before the invention occurred (in the United States and all first-to-invent patent systems) or before the filing date (in Europe and all first-to-file patent systems).
		Prior art searches may also be used to invalidate existing patents (these searches are called "validity searches" or "invalidity searches") by showing that the patent office erred in the issuance of a patent because the patent holder is not the first inventor.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Prior_art (693 words)

	Considering What Constitutes Prior Art in the United States (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		The prior art is defined by Title 35, United States Code, Section 102, which states: "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless...." This language is followed by a series of definitions, the most important of which are summarized in the following.
		Prior knowledge or use in a different country, however, is not a bar to a patent application in the United States.
		In the first circumstance, the issue is whether the prior art was in existence before the date of invention.
	www.tms.org /pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9106.html (1023 words)

	When is something prior art against a patent? (in Patents @ iusmentis.com)
		Prior art basically means any disclosure of the contents of a claim, prior to the application for patent.
		A prior art document is said to anticipate a claim of a patent if the prior art document describes all the features of that claim, either implicitly or explicitly.
		Such prior art documents are often referred to as "killer prior art", although patent attorneys discussing their own cases prefer the term "relevant prior art".
	www.iusmentis.com /patents/priorart (3375 words)

	[No title]
		Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole.
		The prior art recognized that leakage from the liquid to the solids compartment was a problem, and considered the problem to be a result of moisture passing around the center plug because of microscopic fissures inherently present in molded or blown glass.
		The prior art did not recognize that treatment capacity was a function of the tank volume to contractor ratio, and therefore the parameter optimized was not recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable.).
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2141_02.htm (1528 words)

	A Patent Glossary (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Prior Art: The existing body of technological information against which an invention is judged to determine if it is patentable as being novel and unobvious.
		The statement lists the prior art known by the applicant and/or his or her attorneys that is thought by them to be material to the patentability of the claims.
		The effective filing date of the full application for purposes of avoiding prior art will be the filing date of the provisional application, but will have the benefit of the date of filing the full application for purposes of the 20 year patent term.
	www.tms.org /pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9609.html (4864 words)

	COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: PRIOR ART PITFALLS
		However, §103 does not explicitly define the prior art against which obviousness is assessed; courts and the patent office have come to use the categories of prior art as defined in §102 in their determinations of obviousness under §103.
		However, to understand the prior art pitfalls that can be created by collaborative research, it must be understood that where the law refers to an "inventor" it is in fact referring to a particular 'inventive entity'.
		Such a continuation application must be filed prior to the issuance of any patent on the first application, and prior to any publication relating to the initial invention (since a publication becomes prior art distinct from the patent application due to §102(a) or (b)).
	www.sristi.org /mdpipr2004/day3/D3S3R2.htm (2541 words)

	[No title]
		Prior art disclosures on the Internet or on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.
		If the publication does not include a publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. (a) or (b), although it may be relied upon to provide evidence regarding the state of the art.
		Note, however, that if an electronic document which is the abstract of a patent or printed publication is relied upon in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. or 103, only the text of the abstract (and not the underlying document) may be relied upon to support the rejection.
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm (782 words)

	artists illustrating boys fashions: William Matthew Prior (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Prior was a religious man and was an ardent follower of the Advent Movement.
		Prior was an extremely prolific portrait painter, laeving us with a wonderful record of American children and their clothing in the early 19th century.
		A HBC reader has provided a description of one of Prior's portraits: At the Terra Museum of American Art is a large portrait of a boy, entitled "Portrait of Young Boy Holding Bow and Arrow with Drum on the Floor", by William Matthew Prior and Sturtevant J. Hamblin.
	histclo.hispeed.com /art/ind/p/art-prior.html (1616 words)

	Going Beyond the Prior Art Search (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Prior art searches and strategic management of intellectual property assets are imperative concerns for not only the existing small and medium enterprise but also for engineering-based start-ups.
		However, these issues, patent prior art searches and intellectual property strategy, are often not included in the business plans of start-ups outside the university environment.
		Trust and accessibility are important for the simple reason that the development engineer or director of a start-up are not experts in intellectual property and may have little or no knowledge of the complexity of the field arising from the complex interaction of legal and technical issues at both a local and global scale.
	www.wipo.int /sme/en/documents/beyond_prior_art.htm (632 words)

	Software and the Prior Art (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Each of the statutory requirements (of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness) are evaluated in light of the prior art to determine whether the invention is new, and that it is not obvious to a person familiar with the technical field of the invention.
		The range of applicable prior art includes, but is not limited too, journals, technical reports, university these, books, government reports, conferences and proceedings, sales literature, electronic databases, internal technical manuals, reference works, bulletins, software, public knowledge, public use, sales activities, and prior invention by another.
		Prior art is important not only during the examination, but also during re-examination challenges, infringement lawsuits, and for the information disclosure statement included with the application (which requires the applicant to disclose all prior art that the applicant has knowledge of, and which is material to the examination of the application.)
	www.ipmall.info /hosted_resources/bp96/softpa.htm (4146 words)

	[No title]
		A statement by an applicant during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission that that work is available as prior art against the claims, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. Riverwood Int'l Corp. v.
		However, even if labeled as "prior art," the work of the same inventive entity may not be considered prior art against the claims unless it falls under one of the statutory categories.
		In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909-910, 200 USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979) (holding preamble not to be admitted prior art where applicant explained that the Jepson format was used to avoid a double patenting rejection in a co-pending application and the examiner cited no art showing the subject matter of the preamble).
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2129.htm (592 words)

	Crash course on patents: The procedure for getting a patent (in Patents > Crash course @ iusmentis.com)
		He could also start looking for relevant prior art (for example, documents on his own use of the invention before the filing date) to get the patent annulled if it is granted eventually.
		In this stage, the patent application is compared against the state of the art by an Examiner, who makes a determination whether the invention is novel and whether it involves an inventive step.
		It is possible to invalidate a patent at any moment based on the fact that it is not novel or that it is obvious over the prior art, as long as the appropriate evidence can be given.
	www.iusmentis.com /patents/crashcourse/procedure (2019 words)

	Disclosing Prior Art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		When an item of prior art is not in the English language, the information disclosure statement must contain a concise explanation of the relevance as understood by the individual within the group who is most knowledgeable about that prior art.
		Frequently, it is advantageous to identify the most relevant prior art in the patent application as filed, as this provides an initial opportunity to place the prior art in context in the evolutionary process that led to the invention.
		It was felt to be highly desirable to present such art to the examiner both as a matter of fair and open dealing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (then called the Patent Office) and to obtain the benefit of the presumption of validity over the most material prior art.
	www.tms.org /pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9707.html (1096 words)

	Patent critics search for prior art - ZDNet UK News (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Prior art has been key to the case since its inception, but the issue is once again on the front burner, after an unusual filing by the leading Web standards body this month to the US Patent and Trademark Office.
		Determinations about prior art are typically the province of lawyers, judges and juries.
		While Microsoft seeks to take its prior art claims back to court as part of preliminary moves to appeal the patent verdict, the W3C has bypassed the courts to argue its prior art case to the USPTO itself.
	news.zdnet.co.uk /software/developer/0,39020387,39117560,00.htm (1862 words)

	W3C USPTO Section 301 Filing
		While we understand that the submitted prior art was introduced during the course of the recent trial proceedings, the issue of whether it renders the '906 patent invalid was never considered.
		The '906 patent acknowledges that Web browsers were in the prior art and in fact describes its alleged invention in terms of modifications to one such prior art browser, the NCSA Mosaic browser, Version 2.4.
		However, even assuming a lower level of ordinary skill in the art, the claims of the '906 patent would still have been obvious, given that the enclosed prior art describe precisely what the '906 patent claims as its invention in precisely the same context.
	www.w3.org /2003/10/301-filing.html (5230 words)

	Reexamination - How does a bad patent get invalidated?
		The purpose of the reexamination was to provide a less-costly and speedier alternative to litigation in cases that deal with the issue of patent validity by allowing the PTO to consider newly found prior art patents and printed publications.
		If we discover prior art that is material to the claims of the issued patent, we would then consider whether the prior art would sufficient restrict the claims to be of strategic advantage to our client.
		A substantial question is present if the prior art reference is material, i.e., “where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider the prior art patent or printed publication important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable.”
	www.baypatents.com /reexam.asp (732 words)

	Time for a "Prior Art Project"?
		One of the best defenses against patent infringement is the establishment of what's called "Prior Art", or a demonstration that the patent the person holds is invalid because they tried to patent something that others had already done.
		If there were place they could go to research what Prior Art exited in the specific area they were writing software for, then it would help them avoid infringing patents to begin with.
		If Patent Prior Art Help is needed, Please contact me. I am brand new at this, however, I believe that my collection could prove to be a huge benefit to society.
	www.oreillynet.com /pub/wlg/3633 (5223 words)

	Prior Art Searches - Thomson Scientific (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07)
		Prior Art is a summary of the knowledge already in existence about past inventions, and Prior Art searching is a compulsory part of the patent examination process.
		In essence, prior art searching is the single most effective way of protecting your company's R&D budget.
		You can order a prior art search from Thomson Scientific via this Site.
	scientific.thomson.com /products/searchservices/services/priorart (162 words)

	Light on the Familiar: The Paintings of Scott Prior
		Prior turned to his family and their domestic surroundings as his primary source of inspiration.
		Prior was subsequently included in several group exhibitions at DeCordova, and by 1977 the Museum owned five of his paintings.
		Thus, as the first museum to pay serious attention to Prior's art, it is fitting for DeCordova to organize his first retrospective exhibition, including paintings that range in date from 1971 to 1999.
	www.tfaoi.com /aa/2aa/2aa494.htm (815 words)

	US Patent Office '906 Letter
		On October 24 2003, we filed a statement under 35 U.S.C. Section 301 presenting prior art not considered by the Patent and Trademark Office in issuing the '906 patent and explaining why the claims of the patent are invalid based upon that prior art.
		The claims of the '906 patent are plainly not patentable given this prior art.
		Thus even without considering the several prior art publications annexed to our Section 3.01 filing, it is apparent that the '906 patent added nothing to the art -- it only applied a well known concept in the display of documents to the display of a particular kind of document -- Web pages.
	www.w3.org /2003/10/27-rogan.html (2038 words)

	M.P.E.P. Section 2203, Persons Who May Cite Prior Art (BitLaw)
		If a person citing prior art desires his or her identity to be kept confidential, such a person need not identify himself or herself.
		The statute indicates that "at the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential".
		Persons citing art who desire to remain confidential are therefore advised to not identify themselves anywhere in their papers.
	www.bitlaw.com /source/mpep/2203.html (383 words)

	[No title]
		Statutory basis for citation of prior art patents or printed publications in patent files and reexamination of patents became available on July 1, 1981, as a result of new sections 301-307 of title 35 United States Code which were added by Public Law 96-517 enacted on December 12, 1980.
		The rules of practice in patent cases relating to reexamination were initially promulgated on April 30, 1981, at 46 FR 24179-24180 and on May 29, 1981, at 46 FR 29176-29187.
		The flowcharts show the general provisions of both the citation of prior art and ex parte reexamination proceedings, including reference to the pertinent rule sections.
	www.uspto.gov /web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200_2201.htm (529 words)

	United States - Prior Art effect of Confidential Disclosures
		The court also added that if the information is confidential, it is only prior art as to the person who had knowledge of the disclosure and it would not be prior art as to someone who did not have knowledge of the information.
		In this case, the defendant argued that the confidential disclosure should have been disclosed to the Patent Office because it was material to patentability and therefore, the plaintiff's patent was invalid on the basis of inequitable conduct.
		The court declined to address this issue because it considered that prior to its ruling it was not clear that the plaintiff had an obligation to disclose the confidential information to the Patent Office.
	www.ladas.com /BULLETINS/1997/1297Bulletin/US_PriorArtConfDiscl.html (350 words)

	IP.com's Prior Art Database
		Additionally, the lack of a single, world-accessible, publicly searchable database meant that even if individual companies published their disclosures, there was only a slight chance that it would be seen by patent examiners.
		The IP.com Prior Art Database was created to alleviate this problem, and provide innovative companies with a fast and effective way to publish their innovation into a single, publicly searchable, library indexed, collection of prior art.
		In addition to providing ease of use, the IP.com Prior Art Database has extensive safeguarding measures, to provide evidence of document integrity and datestamp in the event you need to present it at trial.
	www.ip.com /pad (192 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)