Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[debugger]

The background section of a patent app should list relevant prior art, identify limitations, and highlight the relative advantages of the invention.

In many technical areas (e.g. software) there are tens to hundreds of publications, products, and patents that could be considered relevant prior art.

A comprehensive literature survey such as might appear in a PhD dissertation seems a practical mistake (and would be very time consuming), even if technically accurate.

So, when there are many (say > 10) prior art publications, extant products, or patents that could be relevant, what are practical criteria for inclusion? exclusion?

Does form of citation matter? Should I follow the _U of C Manual of Style_? IEEE or ACM? or ??


tia

[That's What I Said]

If your questions relate to the following question, then I have a no-brainer answer.

How many particular prior art references should you cite and describe in the background section of your patent application?

The no-brainer answer is ... drum-roll please ... NONE!

A comprehensive literature survey is not your responsibility in drafting a patent application. You have only a duty to disclose the most relevant prior art of which you are already or become aware. But if you don't look ... you don't have to tell. There are potential pitfalls and little or no benefit in describing in detail, or even identifying, any particular prior art references in your patent application specification. What if you mischaracterize the prior art? What if, after issuance, your claims arguably read on a product (infringing scum suckers!) but the product nonetheless seems to suffer one of many disadvantages you identified when you described the prior art at length and in detail in your background section?

Just list the prior art of which you are aware in an information disclosure statement. Keep your background shallow and general. You can describe the advantages of your invention as advantages ... you don't have to describe the lesser work of mere mortals. If the Examiner cites particular prior art against your claims in an Office Action, then, and only then, consider drafting any substantive comparison of your claims and the cited prior art.

Every word you type into your patent application is potentially a noose that can hang your IP until dead. Don't hand your litigation enemies any extra rope.

That's what I say ... that's right ... I said it ... what? ... you want some of this?

[Patent Examiner SIPO China]

Hello,
in fact, it's just better if you could list as many as tightly relevant background files in your application.
However,sometimes it may be better not to hand on too many background files, in case when the examinor exams your patent as non-creativeness using the background knowledge.

There should be a trick in doing so, just depends on what you do and what you are.

Good luck!

Binqiang Liu

welcome to http//:patent-exam-world.blogspot.com
maybe you can find more there and continuous adding is carried on......

[Patent Examiner SIPO China]

sorry for not giving the full link, here again:

http//:patent-exam-world*blogspot*com

:D