Intellectual Property Forums (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)

(Message started by: kfg on Feb 5th, 2007, 3:28pm)

Title: Does Prior Art Have to Be Documented?
Post by kfg on Feb 5th, 2007, 3:28pm
Does a reference have to be reduced to some documented form to constitute prior art?  For example, if X claims to have invented Invention A but the only proof of this is his testimony and the testimony of others, is that sufficient?

Title: Re: Does Prior Art Have to Be Documented?
Post by Isaac on Feb 5th, 2007, 3:36pm

on 02/05/07 at 15:28:58, kfg wrote:
Does a reference have to be reduced to some documented form to constitute prior art? For example, if X claims to have invented Invention A but the only proof of this is his testimony and the testimony of others, is that sufficient?


Not all prior art consists of references.   References are simply the form of prior art that the patent office is likely to find in a document search.  To the extent that prior art is described in 102 as being something other than a reference or document, other appropriate evidence including testimony can be offered.  Of course testimony is subject to being found credible or not credible by the trier of fact.




Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board