Difference between revisions of "1/31/11 (Robins)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Considerations for nonobviousness can include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure fo others. These can help prove non-obviousness, but they do not cause no...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Considerations for nonobviousness can include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure fo others.  These can help prove non-obviousness, but they do not cause nonobviousness. they are not strict criteria, only considerations.
+
Considerations for nonobviousness can include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others.  These can help prove non-obviousness, but they do not cause nonobviousness. they are not strict criteria, only considerations.
 +
 
 +
Important that court did not view this as an application of the new code.  The code they viewed as simply a codeification of Hotchkiss decision.
 +
 
 +
file wrapper- examiner sends that gives reasons why they wont issue a patent.  Conceded things to get your patent, you can;t later argue things that they didnt allow you to patent.
 +
 
 +
The secondary considerations were met in the Scoggin/Cook case, however it did not imply patentability.
 +
 
 +
US v Adams. Govt said it wasnt novel or nonobvious.  It was novel because all other cited batteries werent underwater sand experts didnt believe him. This also help nonobviousness.

Latest revision as of 13:34, 31 January 2011

Considerations for nonobviousness can include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others. These can help prove non-obviousness, but they do not cause nonobviousness. they are not strict criteria, only considerations.

Important that court did not view this as an application of the new code. The code they viewed as simply a codeification of Hotchkiss decision.

file wrapper- examiner sends that gives reasons why they wont issue a patent. Conceded things to get your patent, you can;t later argue things that they didnt allow you to patent.

The secondary considerations were met in the Scoggin/Cook case, however it did not imply patentability.

US v Adams. Govt said it wasnt novel or nonobvious. It was novel because all other cited batteries werent underwater sand experts didnt believe him. This also help nonobviousness.