www.intelproplaw.com | www.intelproplaw.com |
Re: Re: prior art[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Patent Forum ] [ FAQ ] Posted by in the know on February 28, 2003 at 09:24:33: In Reply to: Re: prior art posted by M Arthur Auslander on February 23, 2003 at 23:50:23: : : please explain prior art against new use for a known device. I am not quite understanding what you're trying to say. Do you want an explanation of how prior art would be used to reject method of use claims? I will assume so. Technically method of use claims are very hard to enforce BTW, well at least 99% of the small mom and pop inventions: like " a method of swinging on a swing" ha ha! Essentially, one would be applying for a "method of use patent". Are you familiar with 102 and 103 statutes wherein 102 based prior art rejections are anticipatory whereas 103 rejections are obviousness based? Lets say you claim the following method. It will sound goofy because I examine article and apparatus claims, not method of use. I am pulling this out of my ass. here it goes: Here is my prior art: Dept of Defense bulletein detailing use of noise/frequency warfare against enemies: basically the use of sound to irritate people. Such a disclosure broadly interpreted is the same exact method that is being claimed. Such a disclosure would be used to make a 102 anticipation rejection. Whether the rejection is a 102a,b,c,d,e depends on dates/ various priority and so forth.
ex. Ex: ref 1 teaches a hiking boot having a smooth tread. To be clear, the "extending projectiles" is just a very broad way of saying a rough tread" ref 2 teaches: Hiking boots are used in terrain that is slippery. Hiking boot soles are advantageousl provided with a rough sole so as to frictionally engage the ground. ok, this is an AWESOME teaching! Then, an examiner would write: In view of this teaching it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have provided the hiking boot disclosed by ref 1 with a rough tread as disclosed by ref 2. One of ordianry skill would have been motivated by the desire to improve the useability of hiking boots in rough terrain. Makes sense? laterz
|
www.intelproplaw.com |
The Intellectual Property Law Server Old Patent Forum |
www.intelproplaw.com |