Print

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

[Ladislao Warcok]

I have this particular case were the examiner has cited relvant documents based on an HTML page, and he considers it as relavant because such HTML page states that the date of the last update was before the date of the filing of my application.

Now my question is the following: how important is considered an internet document before the USPTO. Based on the point that this particular HTML page invalidates my application.

IMHO I think that not web page should be considered as prior art, unless there is some form of validate the data included in such document.

[J. Smith]

Check out MPEP 2128. Examiners can use a webpage as prior art  if a date of posting is included. If no date is included, then the material can still be used to establish evidence as to the state of the art.

I have this particular case were the examiner has cited relvant documents based on an HTML page, and he considers it as relavant because such HTML page states that the date of the last update was before the date of the filing of my application.

Now my question is the following: how important is considered an internet document before the USPTO. Based on the point that this particular HTML page invalidates my application.

IMHO I think that not web page should be considered as prior art, unless there is some form of validate the data included in such document.

[Curious George]

If I understand correctly, the objection to a web page as
prior art is the matter of establishing dates of publication
rather than the content.

One possible way to verify a date is to look for the web
page in question in the "way back" machine.  Sorry, don't have the link
handy.

[eric stasik]

Dear Mr. Warcok,

It is well established that information published electronically qualifies as a "printed publication" if available to the public and dated either explicity, or implicity by the date of retrieval.

J. Smiths pointer to the MPEP was right on. I assume that the examiner found the art which means that he cannot rely on the date of retrieval.

The examiner is however allowed to rely on the publication date included with the document even though it is heresay, the burden to show otherwise is the responsibility of the applicant.

Curious George mentioned the wayback machine which takes snapshots of the internet and archives them. The URL is www.archive.org. If the HTML page the examiner uses is not there, or is different, you may want to bring this to the attention of the examiner. ASK YOUR PATENT ATTORNEY OR AGENT FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE BEFORE DOING ANYTHING.

BTW, you should thank your friendly examiner for finding this prior art. (Even though you may be unhappy about it.)

The worst thing that can happen to an applicant is to have a patent granted, pay all those issue fees, perhaps invest money into commercialising the invention - only to find out at a later date that killer prior art exists. Remember, just because there is a presumed assumption of validity for issued US patents, this is not a guarantee that the patent is indeed invalid.

regards,

eric stasik

[JimIvey]

One possible way to verify a date is to look for the web
page in question in the "way back" machine.  Sorry, don't have the link
handy.

http://www.archive.org/

You should be sure that the examiner is citing the dates correctly.  I had a case in which the examiner cited a web page whose self-purported publication date predated my application but the articles cited on the page were clearly after the filing date.  It was clear (to me anyway) that the webmaster had not updated the publication date when updating the page.

The examiner also cited the wayback machine as indicating that the web site existed in one form or another before my filing date but failed to establish (through the wayback machine or by any other means) that the content relied upon was included in those earlier renditions of the web page.  In fact, the wayback machine itself indicated that the web page had changed scores of times since my filing date.

In short, web pages are fair game but you should hold the examiners to task to establish that the relevant content was in fact published as of the relevant priority dates.  

Regards.

[Ladislao Warcok]

Dear ppl:
              Thank all of you for you response. I do want to make a special notation on eric's response in that the applicant is the one resposible to find out if the cited page has the correct date. On the other hand, it is true that I should thank the Examiner for finding such prior art on the web before the granting and further exposure of the patent in some trial.
              Again ppl, thank you for you professional response in this matter.

Ladislao Warcok
www.sbm.com.ar

[eric stasik]

Dear Mr. Warcok,

I just wanted to comment on you website:

http://www.sbm.com.ar

Your web-designer has done some very nice Flash work. The navigation is clever and very impressive. I like it.

Nice to see something other than boring HTML pages designed by the IT department.  

Regards,

eric stasik

[Ladislao Warcok]

Thank you for your compliment Mr. Stasik, glad you enjoyed the tour on my firm's site.