Re: Re: Re: Re: prior art

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: prior art

Comments:
: : : : : 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: : : : A method of using a stereo system, comprising increasing the volume of said stereo system to an experimentally determined decibel level that will distract ones neighbors. : : : ok, stupid method, totally impractical, I know. : : : 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. : : : : : : I dont have time to explain how a 103 would be put together, but basically you would find a reference that provides a portion of claimed elements, find a second reference that has the rest of the claimed elements, provide motivation for combining the two references, and whala, you have an obviousness rejection 103 : : : ex. : : : claim recite: A, B : : : Primary reference discloses A : : : Primary reference fails to disclose B : : : Secondary reference teaches B : : : In view of this teaching it would have been obvious for one of ordianry skill to have combined the elements A and B motivated by the desire (this is your motivation to combine. Without, you havent meet Graham vs deere test of obviousness. : : : Ex: : : : claimed: hiking boot with a tread containing a plurality of outwardly extending projectiles : : : 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 : : : : THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR OWN WEB SITE. I WOULD LIKE ANY INFORMATION ON PATENT INFRINGEMENT. : : THANKS AGAIN : Dear Frank, : When Santa Claus becomes a patent lawyer you will get better answers to you question. There are limit to what can be given free and that includes overhead. : M. Arthur Auslander : Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law Since 1909 : 3008 Johnson Ave., New York, NY 10463 : 718-548-0592, aus@auslander.com : ELAINE's Workshop® : E arly L egal A dvice I s N ot E xpensive™ : Reality Check®

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

Do not disclose any details of any patent idea. See a lawyer.
Before you post a message you must agree to the Terms of Use.