Contents 1 Usage in litigation 2 Types of prior art searches 2.1 Novelty 2.2 Validity 2.3 Clearance 3 Duty of disclosure 4 Public participation in patent examination 4.1 Pending patent applications 5 See also 5.1 Notable prior art databases 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links 8.1 Official institutions

Usage in litigation[edit] Arguments claiming prior art are used in defending and attacking patent validity. In one U.S. case on the issue, the court said: "One attacking the validity of a patent must present clear and convincing evidence establishing facts that lead to the legal conclusion of invalidity. 35 U.S.C. § 282. To establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, certain factual predicates are required before the legal conclusion of obviousness or nonobviousness can be reached. The underlying factual determinations to be made are (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).[4][5]

Types of prior art searches[edit] Novelty[edit] A "novelty search" is a prior art search that is often conducted by patent attorneys, patent agents or professional patent searchers before an inventor files a patent application. A novelty search helps an inventor to determine if the invention is novel before the inventor commits the resources necessary to obtain a patent. The search may include searching in databases of patents, patent applications and other documents such as utility models and in the scientific literature. Novelty searches can also be used to help an inventor determine what is unique about his/her invention. Anything not found in the prior art can be potentially patentable. Thomas Edison, for example, did not get a patent on the basic concept of the light bulb. It was already patented and therefore in the prior art. Instead, Edison got a patent on his improvements to the light bulb. These improvements included a very thin filament and a reliable technique for joining the white hot filament to the room temperature lead wires.[6] A novelty is also conducted by patent examiners during prosecution of the patent application. For instance, examiner's search guidelines applicable to the United States are found in the U.S. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 904.02 General Search Guidelines, Prior Art, Classification, and Search.[7] Validity[edit] A "validity search" is a prior art search done after a patent issues. The purpose of a validity (or invalidity) search is to find prior art that the patent examiner overlooked so that a patent can be declared invalid. This might be done by an entity infringing, or potentially infringing, the patent, or it might be done by a patent owner or other entity that has a financial stake in a patent to confirm the validity of a patent. Crowdsourcing, where a large number of interested people search for prior art, may be effective where references would otherwise be difficult to find.[8] Clearance[edit] A clearance search is a search of issued patents to see if a given product or process violates someone else's existing patent. If so, then a validity search may be done to try to find prior art that would invalidate the patent. A clearance search is a search targeting patents being in force and may be limited to a particular country and group of countries, or a specific market.

Duty of disclosure[edit] In the United States, inventors and their patent agents or attorneys are required by law to submit any references they are aware of to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that may be material to the patentability of the claims in a patent application they have filed. The patent examiner will then determine if the references qualify as "prior art" and may then take them into account when examining the patent application. If the attorney/agent or inventor fails to properly disclose the potentially relevant references they are aware of, then a patent can be found invalid for inequitable conduct.[9] Japan also has a duty of disclosure.[10][11][12] Australia has abolished its duty of disclosure with regard to the results of documentary searches by, or on behalf of, foreign patent offices, except where: (a) normal exam was requested before April 22, 2007, (b) the foreign patent office search issued before April 22, 2007, and (c) acceptance (allowance) was officially advertised before July 22, 2007.[13]

Public participation in patent examination[edit] Main article: Public participation in patent examination With the advent of the Internet, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to create a forum where the public at large can participate in prior art searches. These forums have been related to both issued patents and pending patent applications. Pending patent applications[edit] More recently, different attempts to employ open Internet-based discussions for encouraging public participation commenting on pending U.S. applications have been started. These may take the form of a wiki: Peer-to-patent online system for open, community patent review. Wikipatents. Public patent clarity: the public can add prior art references for a given patent. patents@stackexchange. A Q&A site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. Patent examiners often use the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a reference to get an overall feel for a given subject.[14][15] Citations of Wikipedia as actual prior art can be problematic, however, due to the fluid and open nature of its editing, and Patents Commissioner Doll said the agency used Wikipedia entries as background and not as a basis for accepting or rejecting an application.[15]

See also[edit] Defensive publication Illegal number, illegal prime Information disclosure statement (IDS) Internet as a source of prior art Micropatent Non-binding opinion (United Kingdom patent law) Patent classification Patent watch Priority right Public participation in patent examination Search report Notable prior art databases[edit] Espacenet—European Patent Office public patent literature database, with patents from many patent offices. Google Patents—public search engine from Google that indexes patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other international patent offices, and machine-CPC-classified non-patent literature from Google Scholar. For other patent search services, see Category:Patent search services. The Internet Archive Wayback Machine is recognized by the USPTO as a valid source of prior art on the Internet, though generally the date of archiving is considered the first published date, rather than the date on any documents that have been archived.[16][17]

References[edit] ^ Sreenivasulu, N. S.; Raju, C. B. (2008). Biotechnology and Patent Law: Patenting Living Beings. Manupatra. p. 95. ISBN 9788189542313. The European Patent Convention uses the term 'state of the art' which is equivalent to prior art (...)  ^ "The expression 'background art' ... must have the same meaning as the more familiar expression 'prior art'" in EPO Board of appeal decision T 11/82 of 15 April 1983, Headnote II and Reasons 15. See also Rule 42(1)(b) and(c) EPC (previously Rule 27(1)(b) and (c) EPC 1973, where the term is used). ^ See for example Article 54(2) EPC and 35 U.S.C. § 102 ^ Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 US 1, Sup. Ct., 1966. ^ Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., 632 F. 3d 1358 at 1363-64, Ct. App. (Fed. Cir.), 2011. ^ Mark Nowotarski, “Why Inventors Should Not Rely On Their Own Search”, IPWatchdog, 11 October 2014 ^ USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, General Search Guidelines [R-3] - 900 Prior Art, Classification, and Search, July 2010. ^ Nowotarski, Mark (July 2012). "Patent Invalidity Search". Insurance IP Bulletin. Retrieved March 1, 2013.  ^ Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F. 3d 1276, Ct. App. (Fed. Cir.), 2011. ^ Patent e-Bulletin, Summer '2002 Developments: Following The United States, Japan And Australia Enact Duty Of Disclosure Requirements, Gastle & Associates (through ^ See also Japan's Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan, Examination Standards Office, December 2011; and Japan's Right Obtainment Procedures. ^ Japan Patent Office, Publication of the "Examination Guidelines on Requirement for Disclosure of Information on Prior Art Documents", Last updated 30 August 2002. ^ Australian Patent Office Manual of Practice and Procedure, 2.13.10 Considering Subsection 45(3) Search Results, 2011-08-15.; see also Changes to regulations made under sections of the Patents Act 1990, (sections 27(1), 45(3) and 101D) Australian Official Journal of Patents, 2007-11-01. ^ Office of the Chief Information Officer, Secure Application Development Coding Policy OCIO, USPTO, May 22, 2009. ^ a b USPTO Bans Wikipedia, The Patent Librarian's Notebook, 2006-09-10, citing Stead, Deborah, Up Front: Kicking Wiki Out Of The Patent Office, Bloomberg Business Week, 2006-09-04. ^ All Things Pros blog, Board decisions involving the Wayback Machine to show status as prior art (Part I), Sunday, December 29, 2013 ^ The Wayback Machine: The State of Dating Online Materials, Intellogist patent research blog, Posted February 1, 2011 by Chris Jagalla

Further reading[edit] Tran, Jasper (2014–15). "Timing Matters: Prior Art's Age Infers Patent Nonobviousness". Gonzaga Law Review. 50: 189. SSRN 2562948 .  Blenko, Walter J., Considering What Constitutes Prior Art in the United States, JOM, 43 (6) (1991), p. 45. Retrieved 2012-01-27.

External links[edit] Official institutions[edit] World Intellectual Property Organization PatentScope, WIPO search tool for international and national patent collections. WIPO Gold, Search national patent offices including US, Japan, the UK, and others. A free public search tool gateway for WIPO's global collections of searchable IP data." United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR), the USPTO search engine for patent and patent application file histories displays reasons why patents are issued; search by application number or customer number. Seven Step Strategy, USPTO patent search strategy. European Patent Office Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section b-vi ("The state of the art at the search stage") Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section g-iv ("State of the art", examination) Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (8th edition, July 2016), i.c.2 : "State of the art" Retrieved from "" Categories: Patent lawHidden categories: All articles with unsourced statementsArticles with unsourced statements from July 2012

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages DeutschMagyarУкраїнська中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 31 October 2017, at 11:30. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.172","walltime":"0.222","ppvisitednodes":{"value":887,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":20181,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":694,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":11,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":1,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 185.643 1 -total"," 40.47% 75.122 1 Template:Reflist"," 21.73% 40.336 1 Template:Citation_needed"," 18.92% 35.116 1 Template:Fix"," 18.41% 34.182 1 Template:Cite_book"," 16.11% 29.902 1 Template:Patent_law"," 15.08% 27.990 1 Template:Sidebar"," 10.95% 20.334 2 Template:Category_handler"," 6.24% 11.579 1 Template:Delink"," 5.44% 10.096 1 Template:Main"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.062","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":2661200,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1301","timestamp":"20171205052835","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":72,"wgHostname":"mw1253"});});

Prior_art - Photos and All Basic Informations

Prior_art More Links

PatentPatentHistory Of Patent LawEconomics And PatentsSocietal Views On PatentsPatent ApplicationPatent ProsecutionOpposition ProceedingLicensePatent InfringementPatent ValuationPatent ClaimPatentabilityNovelty (patent)Inventive Step And Non-obviousnessInventor (patent)Industrial ApplicabilityPatentable Subject MatterPerson Having Ordinary Skill In The ArtUtility (patent)Sufficiency Of DisclosureUnity Of InventionPatent Cooperation TreatyAustralian Patent LawCanadian Patent LawPatent Law Of The People's Republic Of ChinaEuropean Patent LawGerman Patent LawJapanese Patent LawPatent Law In The NetherlandsUnited States Patent LawBiological PatentBusiness Method PatentChemical PatentInsurance PatentSoftware PatentTax PatentCategory:Patent LawGlossary Of Patent Law TermsTemplate:Patent LawTemplate Talk:Patent LawPatentInformationInventionTrade SecretPatent ApplicationClaim (patent)Person Skilled In The ArtEuropean Patent ConventionEuropean Patent ConventionTraditional KnowledgeMedicalWikipedia:Citation NeededGraham V. John Deere Co.Patent AttorneyPatent ApplicationUtility ModelScientific LiteratureThomas EdisonPatent ExaminerManual Of Patent Examining ProcedurePatent InfringementCrowdsourcingClearance Search And OpinionUnited States Patent And Trademark OfficePatent ExaminerInequitable ConductJapanAustraliaPublic Participation In Patent ExaminationInternetWikiWikipediaDefensive PublicationIllegal NumberIllegal PrimeInformation Disclosure StatementInternet As A Source Of Prior ArtMicropatentNon-binding Opinion (United Kingdom Patent Law)Patent ClassificationPatent WatchPriority RightPublic Participation In Patent ExaminationSearch ReportEspacenetEuropean Patent OrganisationGoogle PatentsGoogleUnited States Patent And Trademark OfficeCooperative Patent ClassificationGoogle ScholarCategory:Patent Search ServicesWayback MachineInternet As A Source Of Prior ArtInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/9788189542313European Patent ConventionEuropean Patent ConventionEuropean Patent ConventionTitle 35 Of The United States CodeSocial Science Research NetworkWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationUnited States Patent And Trademark OfficeEuropean Patent OfficeGuidelines For Examination In The European Patent OfficeGuidelines For Examination In The European Patent OfficeCase Law Of The Boards Of Appeal Of The European Patent OfficeHelp:CategoryCategory:Patent LawCategory:All Articles With Unsourced StatementsCategory:Articles With Unsourced Statements From July 2012Discussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link