MitchAlsup1 wrote:On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:48:34 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:07:43 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>Lack of inventive step is more thorny.>
Also, you don’t actually have to prove an idea works before getting a
patent on it.
No, you just have to explain the idea to the examiner in such a way
that [s]he::
a) thoroughly understands the idea
b) can find no patent disclosing that idea
c) verifies the claims match the evidentiary text
d) finds no essentially identical claims in other patents.
Please note that "no patent disclosing the idea" means that all
Knuth-era textbook sw algorithms can now be implemented in VLSI and then
patented.
>
Being documented in a 20-year old uni text book is not enough to stop
the US patent office from allowing your patent.
By law, it should be - disclosed is disclosed, no matter where
or when. The bar is pretty low - we quipped about the "Acta
Physica Mongolica" a few decades ago, now it may be some obscure
Internet link, or a non-published talk at a conference. You
just need to document it.
The examiner may not find it, and can then issue the patent in
error. That was is what the opposition procedure is for (which
the US now also has), plus subsequent steps through the
legal system.
I have personally reviewed 4 different, supposedly valid, patents that
fell into this category,
Only 4? :-)
along with 4 others where the "patent step" was
non-existent, i.e. obviously the only reasonable way for anyone "skilled
in the art" to sole that particular problem.
Lack of inventive step is much more subjective, unfortunately.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.