|
|
Author |
Topic: Anticipation (Read 1900 times) |
|
Keith
Guest
|
If Invention A is comprised of elements 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Invention B is an improvement on invention A in that it comprises elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, is Invention B invalid because it is anticipated by Invention A?
If so, in order NOT to be anticipated by Invention A, would Invention B have to change one of the original elements to, for example, 1, 3, 4 and 5?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
 
Posts: 758
|
 |
Re: Anticipation
« Reply #1 on: Feb 5th, 2007, 6:38pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Feb 5th, 2007, 2:16pm, Keith wrote:| If Invention A is comprised of elements 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Invention B is an improvement on invention A in that it comprises elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, is Invention B invalid because it is anticipated by Invention A? |
|
No, but A dominates B.
Too, patents can be invalid, but inventions can be not patentable.
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 5th, 2007, 6:39pm by Bill Richards » |
IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
zippy
Guest
|
I have a corollary question.
Let's suppose that someone invents television and it only exists in BLACK AND WHITE format. A person patents the following:
A method of distributing weather information comprising broadcasting weather reports through a television network.
(Obviously, this is a simplified scenario.)
Five years later, someone invents COLOR television.
A second person wants to patent the following:
A method of distributing weather information comprising broadcasting weather reports through a COLOR television network.
Is this patentably distinct? I'm just having a hard time seeing how it could be considered non-obvious, or at least, how I would argue that it's non-obvious.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
zippy
Guest
|
I have to give this a bump to see if anybody can give me a little insight on my issue. Thanks guys.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
Posts: 758
|
|
Re: Anticipation
« Reply #4 on: Feb 27th, 2007, 3:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Obviousness is difficult enough to opine upon without trying to apply it to hypos. 
|
|
IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Remove