|
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
"So if you have four claims in a patent, you can find one claim from four
different previously issued patents, and it counts."
As Mark Webbink and Michael Risch both explained a little after that paragraph,
it should say something more like
"So if you have a claim that has four elements, you can find one element
from four different previously issued patents, and it can count for
obviousness."
You are making the point that unlike showing lack of novelty, which would
require finding every element of a claim appearing together, such as all in one
claim of a prior patent, obviousness can be the result of showing that a PHOSITA
could have pieced the elements together from the multiple sources.
That is exactly the point that Mark Webbink explains in his quote.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
<errata>
Following "Here is what I get from that list, ..." :
Just before "5. It doesn't help" insert a
"</p><p>" combination;
Just before "6. If you find" insert a "</p><p>"
combination.
</errata>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
The "just announced" link has no href URL. Is it meant to go to a
Google blog post?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|