wallflower
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
 |
Re: Invention Promotion Companies
« Reply #16 on: Jun 24th, 2006, 8:24pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 24th, 2006, 2:08pm, Wiscagent wrote:Wallflower -
I was not as clear as I might have been. My point is this - If an examiner is examining a patent application and identifies a prior art reference - let's say 102(b) for simplicity - that anticipates the claim, it makes no difference whether or not that reference is a valid patent. In deed it need not be a patent at all. It is only required (assuming the date of the reference is appropriate and the document is a patent or "printed publication") that the document be enabling.
That's why the validity of the prior art patent is tangental to it's use as a reference against the present application.
Richard Tanzer |
|
Richard,
I think I see the confusion now. I wasn't referring to the validity of the prior art reference. I was referring to the OP's patent application if it issues. The presumption of validity of an issued patent (OP's patent) is particularly strong over references before the examiner during prosecution, such as those cited in the IDS. So, in answer to the OP's concerns, I think it can be presumed that the Examiner has "verified" the references cited in the IDS. Even if the Examiner hasn't done so, the presumption of validity over the prior art cited in the IDS is more difficult to overcome.
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Author
IP Logged