2 ms·
You don't think it was an attempted abuse of the (US and worldwide) patent system that McDonald's tried to patent something that was obvious, non-novel and alre
by smcin 3y ago
You don't think it was an attempted abuse of the (US and worldwide) patent system that McDonald's tried to patent something that was obvious, non-novel and already being made for half a century? Seems pretty shameless.
Not everyone who attempts to file a patent is an inventor. Some are nuisances, some are outright trolls.
We could cite patents that were actually granted that should have failed obviousness.
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou're arguing a different point. G*P said "only patent prior art is considered." That is clearly wrong. If you want to broaden the argument, you might want to start a new thread.
- btrettel 3y agoI don't like this practice at all. Patent examiners see applicants claiming things that they likely believe isn't allowable all the time. When done in bad faith it's called "inequitable conduct" [1]. Keep in mind that as an examiner, I couldn't reject them for that, so I just found prior art to reject them with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequitable_conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequitable_conduct