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

(Message started by: Neeraj on Aug 19th, 2007, 5:04am)

Title: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by Neeraj on Aug 19th, 2007, 5:04am

Hii frnds,

Can anybody explain me the differece between anticipation and obviousness with example?

Thanx and Regards,

neeraj.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by patag2001 on Aug 19th, 2007, 4:21pm
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!

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by patag2001 on Aug 19th, 2007, 4:32pm
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.


Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by Bill Richards on Aug 21st, 2007, 11:19pm

on 08/19/07 at 16:21:29, 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.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by PE on Sep 6th, 2007, 12:22am
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.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by Bill Richards on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:16pm

on 09/06/07 at 00:22:53, PE wrote:
go to e-formationcentral for more info regarding patenting process.

As Arte Johnson used to say:  "Verrry interesting!"
As I said in an earlier post on another thread, be careful about invention promotion companies.  That earlier post was in response to a post by "Friendly Neighbor".  The "verrry interesting" part is that they appear to be the same person.  I think being honest and straightforward is the best policy.  Apparently, not everyone feels the same way.
C'mon Friendly or PE or whoever you are, what do you think?

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by JimIvey on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:44pm
Ah, the very thorny issue of self-promotion.  I sometimes post a link to a FAQ or article on my own site.  I suppose, in a way, I'm just as guilty of self-promotion.  Since few of the questions here are original (i.e., have been asked in various forms by others), I could very easily write a more elaborate set of FAQs and site myself in response to a good 80% of the questions here.  The reason I haven't has more to do with lack of time to write FAQs than with ethical scruples.  

Having said that, there seems to be a fairly recent trend of new posters recommending -- quite openly and blatantly -- that people go to their site and/or use their services for more assistance.  On the other hand, when I first started posting here, there was only one other professional and many of the replies were along the lines of "You will need to give me a $250 retainer before I answer that question."  So, it's not new.

I'll share my perspective on all this, but -- being a moral relativist -- I'm not sure it will help resolve the ethics of anyone else's behavior.

I only post links to my site when it's a deep link directly to the FAQ/article that I think answers the question.  I don't suggest people go to my site and browse around.  In other words, link or no link, my responses are intended to be informative.  FWIW, I think PE's post was mostly intended to be informative, the sole difficulty anyone has being with the last line.

More importantly, and impossible to get any sense from reading these forums, I won't take a penny from someone unless I think I can legitimately help them in a cost-effective manner.  Of course, many inventors are happy with my not taking a penny but would still like assistance -- but that's another matter altogether.  

I don't know about PE or e-formaticfunctionstuff.com and I don't care to look it up.  And, I don't think the answer as to whether that site represents a ethical practitioner/firm can be found here.  I think it's entirely proper for Bill or anyone to raise the issue and recommend that invention scam reporting site for people to do their due diligence before cutting a healthy-sized check.  But I have no problem with invention submission company scammers (not suggesting PE is one of them) contributing here -- as long as it's mostly contribution.

I think a way of subtle and inobtrusive self-promotion that seems to be a nice balance is to (i) identify yourself by becoming a member and (ii) including a link to your site in your signature and (iii) when it seems appropriate, saying "I have more information about that on my site if anyone wants to read more."  Believe or not, many of the readers here seem to be perfectly capable of clicking on links in signatures and by the poster summaries.

My two-cents....

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by Bill Richards on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:19am
I agree with Jim 100 percent.  It's the apparent shill-like subterfuge that bothers me.  Perhaps it's all relative, but I could never see myself signing on as a guest and, in answering a question, direct someone to myself or to someone in which I have a pecuniary interest without full disclosure.  (As Jim will attest, most of the professional practitioners posting here, if asked for help, will generally tell the OP that, yes, they could help, but so could many of the other qualified professionals here.)  Again, it's all relative, but the website in question here appears to be a legitimate attempt to advance one's knowledge of the patent process.  Sprinkled liberally throughtout the site, however, are links to invention promotion companies.  In and of itself, I don't have a problem with that (Well, I do, but mostly because I've seen too many clients who have come off much worse for the experience after having dealt with one.  Some with patentable inventions that have missed bar dates.  Maybe that's my bias -- see, full disclosure!), but if someone is directing others to a particular website, they should identify themselves.  I found it particularly objectional that the poster in question attempted to make it appear as if it was not the same person.
Bottom line, as I said earlier, straightforward with full disclosure is the best policy, IMHO.  (On a happier note, my wife would say I have no "humble" opinions.)

Title: Off-topic
Post by MattB on Sep 7th, 2007, 11:01am
Bill, Jim,

You guys have been great!  Thank you for all your help.

I just graduated law school and took up a job at a patent firm and your quick and insightful responses have been on the money!

Thank you again for your help.

Alas, in addition to learning, I also need to drum up some business.  I do this locally in AZ, but would posting my website on my signature deter your responses?

MattB

Title: Re: Off-topic
Post by JimIvey on Sep 7th, 2007, 2:18pm

on 09/07/07 at 11:01:33, MattB wrote:
... would posting my website on my signature deter your responses?

Hey, if we can do it, you can do it.  I probably wouldn't even notice -- had to look just now to see if Bill has a link there, hadn't noticed one way or the other until now.  See?  Unobtrusive.

Regards.

Title: Re: Off-topic
Post by Isaac on Sep 7th, 2007, 3:53pm
I don't see any problem at all with using a link in a signature file.   Further, I'm a lot less bothered by self-promotion from posters who contribute to discussion.

That said, if I were going to use a link myself, I'd feel obligated to make sure my employer was happy with me doing so.  Given my propensity to mouth off on just about any topic, I'm not inclined to sort that out right now.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by biopico on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:18pm
Well, I would like to but my employer may or may not like to see so I just don't risk.


Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by PE on Sep 8th, 2007, 11:01am

on 09/06/07 at 20:16:08, Bill Richards wrote:
As Arte Johnson used to say:  "Verrry interesting!"
As I said in an earlier post on another thread, be careful about invention promotion companies.  That earlier post was in response to a post by "Friendly Neighbor".  The "verrry interesting" part is that they appear to be the same person.  I think being honest and straightforward is the best policy.  Apparently, not everyone feels the same way.
C'mon Friendly or PE or whoever you are, what do you think?

Thank you for your input.  I'm new to having a website and your point was very well taken.  However, what I'd like to make a point.  The site that was being referred to is strictly providing free information about patenting to the public so that they can get a better grasp of the whole patenting process.  The site does not provide any professional services, as you wrongly stated (invention promotion companies).  If inventors are able to get information from a website regarding patenting process, I think that website would be good for the patenting communty.  I think you should may be check out the site BEFORE you start criticizing the website itself.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by pentazole on Sep 8th, 2007, 5:05pm
re-read what he said.  Nowhere did he say you provide professional services.

Title: Re: anticipationn and obviousness
Post by JimIvey on Sep 9th, 2007, 6:22pm
In some ways, it's even worse (IMHO) to repeatedly suggest to people reading one ad-supported site to switch over to your own ad-supported site, using the resources of the first site.  It's a bit like walking into a Burger King and trying to convince everyone waiting in line to go to McDonalds.  George has put together quite a good site and spends some of his own programming efforts to make these forums function for the greatest benefit of its readers.  To use the fruits of his effort to promote your own competing site is a bit unseemly.

You want to go somewhere else and say your site is better than this one, that's fine.  But using this site to plug your competing site is a bit different.

Like I said in another post, if you have an article/FAQ that addresses a specific question, go ahead and post a deep link.  If the posted question is about what other sites might provide general IP information, go ahead and post your main link.  But, I think that including a general link to a competing site in nearly every post to be somewhat distasteful.

Just a thought....



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