Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: Language to use for emphasizing the non-obviousness of a feature  (Read 281 times)

Patentstudent

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile

Are there 'proven' phrases that can be used in the specification section of a patent application in order to demonstrate/emphasize the non-obviousness of a feature?

Thank you for your replies/views.
Logged

lazyexaminer

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile

Are there 'proven' phrases that can be used in the specification section of a patent application in order to demonstrate/emphasize the non-obviousness of a feature?

Thank you for your replies/views.

I’m not sure there can be such a phrase. If a PHOSITA looking at the prior art thinks something would have been obvious it shouldn’t matter much what the applicant said. You can say whatever you want but whatever is in the art is going to be far more important.
Logged
I'm not your examiner, I'm not your lawyer, and I'm speaking only for myself, not for the USPTO.

ThomasPaine

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile

No.
Logged

snapshot

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile

Are there 'proven' phrases that can be used in the specification section of a patent application in order to demonstrate/emphasize the non-obviousness of a feature?

Thank you for your replies/views.

I’m not sure there can be such a phrase. If a PHOSITA looking at the prior art thinks something would have been obvious it shouldn’t matter much what the applicant said. You can say whatever you want but whatever is in the art is going to be far more important.

I would agree with this.

Also, the reasons the art teaches for something being obvious don't have to match the reasons why the inventor did something for it to be considered obvious.
Logged

Patentstudent

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile

Lazyexaminer, ThomasPaine and snapshot, thank you very much for your clear answers.
 
Logged
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 44.056 seconds with 21 queries.