|
|
Author |
Topic: anticipationn and obviousness (Read 5293 times) |
|
Neeraj
Newbie
Posts: 1
|
 |
anticipationn and obviousness
« on: Aug 19th, 2007, 5:04am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Hii frnds,
Can anybody explain me the differece between anticipation and obviousness with example?
Thanx and Regards,
neeraj.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
patag2001
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
|
Re: anticipationn and obviousness
« Reply #1 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 4:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Patentability includes novelty and non-obviousness.
If an invention is similar to earlier prior art, then it is said to be anticipated or not novel.
For more information look at the MPEP 2131, see link immediately below:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2131.htm
Obviousness is a determination that the claimed invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the point in time when the invention was made known.
For more information look at the MPEP 2142, see link immediately below:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2142.htm
I hope this helps!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
patag2001
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
|
Re: anticipationn and obviousness
« Reply #2 on: Aug 19th, 2007, 4:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I see you wanted an example too.
Well, let’s say to meet a need someone invents boots to protect one’s feet from the cold.
Later, someone else invents gloves to protect one’s hands from the cold.
The examiner says the gloves are obvious, because one of ordinary skill in the art would do this in view of the boots previously invented.
Perhaps someone else can provide a better example.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
 
Posts: 758
|
|
Re: anticipationn and obviousness
« Reply #3 on: Aug 21st, 2007, 11:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 19th, 2007, 4:21pm, patag2001 wrote:| If an invention is similar to earlier prior art, then it is said to be anticipated or not novel. |
|
Just to clarify, since similar can be an elusive term. To anticipate, a single prior art reference must teach all the elements of the claim at issue.
As for obviousness, how about this? Little red wagon with rope to pull is known. Someone wants to substitute a chain. What about substituting a rigid bar? Maybe before the invention of such handles, it might not have been obvious since it allows one to push the wagon backwards. Too, it depends upon what's all taught by the references.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 6th, 2007, 8:08pm by Bill Richards » |
IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
PE
Guest
|
|
Re: anticipationn and obviousness
« Reply #4 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 12:22am » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
anticipation simply means that your invention (as claimed) was already evidenced by another, "evidence" in the form of a public disclosure or sales, etc. (read MPEP 2100 for specifics.
obviousness means that your invention as claimed was an obvious derivation from something that was already known.
the phrase, "as claimed" is a very important point. It really doesn't matter what your invention is, if it is not properly described by the claims. Claims are what defines your invention and your invention can become "accidentally" anticipated or rendered obvious over something that is remotely related to your invention, when claims are drafted poorly.
go to e-formationcentral for more info regarding patenting process.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print