4 ms·

If these weren't depressing they'd be funny. For those who don't know the patent & trademark office (PTO) defines "obvious" as described in a prior patent or,

If these weren't depressing they'd be funny. For those who don't know the patent & trademark office (PTO) defines "obvious" as described in a prior patent or, sometimes, an academic paper. Even if everybody in the field has been doing the same thing for years it isn't "non obvious" unless somebody wrote to the PTO about it. But since it's obvious in reality those nobody except crooks bother to. The whole system is rigged in favor of "people" who write up patentable junk -- those who have the time to write it into patents -- whereas people who actually build things are busy perfecting the trade skills the patent system was made to protect. OK - tirade over. Back to my new app. My wife dreamed it up and we're writing it together. When finished and released, if it does well, some fat slob -- who never wrote or programmed anything useful in his life -- will show up to shake us down.

axman6 13y ago
That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. The problem is that these are the most easily searchable bases of prior art because their fields necessitate it: academics are required to find everything piece of related are on what they're researching when producing works like a PhD thesis, and as such huge databases of academic work exist which are easily searchable; patents in the US are also required to disclose all know prior art (I believe, US patent law isn't where my experience comes from), and as such, the larger patent offices (the European and US particularly) have had to develop tools for effectively searching patents. Patents are also usually a good source for prior art because they like to disclose things as broadly as possible so they can claim as broadly as they're allowed. If you find a document which describes something within the scope of the claim you're looking at, then you've got a great novelty citation. The reason sometimes known things are allowed through is because the patent offices can find no proof that it is well known in the form of a single document before something can be called not novel. In some other juristrictions, common general knowledge in the art is more often used when it's known that something is already routine. even if there's nothing that clearly shows is, simply because it's so common.
- chii 13y ago
  imho, i say that the claims of the patent has to first be examined by a person skilled in the arts, without first reading the actual patent. If the person skilled in the arts is able to discern the inner workings of the patent _without_ having read the patent itself, then the patent can be deemed obvious and thus cannot be valid.
  - axman6 13y ago
    Uh what? So you're saying that if a PSA can understand the definition, it's not inventive? That's ridiculous. And you can bet that many patents are indeed examined without a reading of the description, it's often not necessary. The claims are supposed to stand on their own, and only when comes to matters of determining the exact scope of a term in a claim would you refer to the description most of the time. Also the description should give enough information about a topic that someone who's not an expert in the art (and this is distinct from someone who is skilled in the art) can fully understand the invention, but but apart from the clarifications I mentioned earlier, it plays little role.
- rlpb 13y ago
  > That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. Prior art isn't the issue. To be patentable, an invention has to be: 1) non-obvious (to someone skilled in the art); 2) novel; 3) (other things). Prior art addresses the novelty side of things. Not the non-obviousness side. The requirement of non-obviousness sounds great in theory, but is in reality a joke, since the only test used is that of prior art. It is possible for an invention to be obvious and yet for no prior art to exist. In technology one (non-obvious, novel, patentable) invention often enables a big pile of (novel but now obvious, and therefore not patentable) inventions. Using prior art as the only test for obviousness ignores this case entirely.
  - michaelolenick 13y ago
    Yes - this is what I meant, though I think it's also what I wrote. It's not prior art; it's obviousness, and the USPTO defines non-obvious as published, co-mingling the two. So we see lots of patents for obvious tweaks from one platform to another. For example, the same functionality ported from local computer programs to web-based systems, client-server architecture, and now mobile all seems to qualify as non-obvious. In reality these ports are entirely obvious to anybody who understands that the underlying tech is basically the same.

axman6 13y ago

That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. The problem is that these are the most easily searchable bases of prior art because their fields necessitate it: academics are required to find everything piece of related are on what they're researching when producing works like a PhD thesis, and as such huge databases of academic work exist which are easily searchable; patents in the US are also required to disclose all know prior art (I believe, US patent law isn't where my experience comes from), and as such, the larger patent offices (the European and US particularly) have had to develop tools for effectively searching patents. Patents are also usually a good source for prior art because they like to disclose things as broadly as possible so they can claim as broadly as they're allowed. If you find a document which describes something within the scope of the claim you're looking at, then you've got a great novelty citation. The reason sometimes known things are allowed through is because the patent offices can find no proof that it is well known in the form of a single document before something can be called not novel. In some other juristrictions, common general knowledge in the art is more often used when it's known that something is already routine. even if there's nothing that clearly shows is, simply because it's so common.

chii 13y ago
imho, i say that the claims of the patent has to first be examined by a person skilled in the arts, without first reading the actual patent. If the person skilled in the arts is able to discern the inner workings of the patent _without_ having read the patent itself, then the patent can be deemed obvious and thus cannot be valid.
- axman6 13y ago
  Uh what? So you're saying that if a PSA can understand the definition, it's not inventive? That's ridiculous. And you can bet that many patents are indeed examined without a reading of the description, it's often not necessary. The claims are supposed to stand on their own, and only when comes to matters of determining the exact scope of a term in a claim would you refer to the description most of the time. Also the description should give enough information about a topic that someone who's not an expert in the art (and this is distinct from someone who is skilled in the art) can fully understand the invention, but but apart from the clarifications I mentioned earlier, it plays little role.
rlpb 13y ago
> That's not at all how the prior art base of the USPTO, nor any other patent office, is defined. Prior art isn't the issue. To be patentable, an invention has to be: 1) non-obvious (to someone skilled in the art); 2) novel; 3) (other things). Prior art addresses the novelty side of things. Not the non-obviousness side. The requirement of non-obviousness sounds great in theory, but is in reality a joke, since the only test used is that of prior art. It is possible for an invention to be obvious and yet for no prior art to exist. In technology one (non-obvious, novel, patentable) invention often enables a big pile of (novel but now obvious, and therefore not patentable) inventions. Using prior art as the only test for obviousness ignores this case entirely.
- michaelolenick 13y ago
  Yes - this is what I meant, though I think it's also what I wrote. It's not prior art; it's obviousness, and the USPTO defines non-obvious as published, co-mingling the two. So we see lots of patents for obvious tweaks from one platform to another. For example, the same functionality ported from local computer programs to web-based systems, client-server architecture, and now mobile all seems to qualify as non-obvious. In reality these ports are entirely obvious to anybody who understands that the underlying tech is basically the same.