3 ms·
Even better, "none to independently derive". Patents must be non-obvious. I would take independent invention as evidence that the patent should never have be
by MereInterest 4y ago
Even better, "none to independently derive". Patents must be non-obvious. I would take independent invention as evidence that the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
- yarg 4y agoThey must be non-obvious to an expert in the field. In theory that's a strictly tighter constraint than non-obvious, although it's impossible to actually implement. However, independent invention isn't necessarily a proof that the particular patent should not have been granted. Often, it is not the solution but its problem space that's obvious. There tends to be a finite domain of reasonable solutions, and solutions converge to that domain. In which case you probably want some sort of thicket busting legislation.