9 ms·
I may have missed it, but I didn't see the new 3 points that remain in the test anywhere in the article. Would appreciate it if someone could summarize the new
by danshapiro 16y ago
I may have missed it, but I didn't see the new 3 points that remain in the test anywhere in the article. Would appreciate it if someone could summarize the new tests in the comments.
- danshapiro 16y agoAfter doing some searching, found http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742, which claims only two tests survive: (a) substituting one known element for another, which requires that the result obtained would have been predictable. (b) the obvious to try rationale, which requires a recognized problem or need in the art and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need or problem. I wonder if previously rejected obviousness claims can be reopened? If so, companies with issued patents have some strategizing to do.
- ScottBurson 16y agoThanks for the link, but look again: it says those two tests survive in addition to the traditional TSM test. As for the last question, there's always a risk of an issued patent being thrown out for obviousness when one tries to litigate it. I wouldn't think this changes that much (although the KSR decision, on which this is based, might have changed it).