pentester2189114hushmail.com
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 20:46:38 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:26:28 -0800 owaspmoiler.com wrote:
>In which case would 'prior art' relating to individual sections of
>the
>patent still be relevant?
>

It is possible to combine relevant prior art to invalidate a patent,
but it is much more difficult. It is called obviousness, and it means
that the method described in the patent would have been obvious to a
person skilled in the art through the combination of multiple references.
 But this is intuitive and subject to debate, and the case law does not
shine on this type of defense.

A single piece of prior art that predates the original patent application
date by one year and that specifically describes a process that mirrors
all of the claims within the patent is a powerful and compelling defense.
 The PTO would be hard pressed to ignore such prior art.

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]