Talk:Prior art/Archives/2012

Revert on copyvio

I reverted an anon's changes that were copied word for word from this forum posting. I'm not sure how informative it was in the first place. Not to mention the fact that it was totally uncited. Mmmbeer 19:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

non-patent prior art

Would it be possible to have a definition of non-patent prior art added to this entry? 19 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.165.141 (talk • contribs)

• Care to elaborate what "nonpatent prior art" might be? If you don't have a definition, use it in a sentence.mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • non-patent prior art: any type of information made available to the public via all possible means and is of relevance to a particular subject. In essence, all publication types will be considered prior art should they be of any relevance to a pending patent application. for example a blog post in Japan might prevent a patent application in the US from receiving patent status should parallels between an idea described in both exists.--Carbonbase 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Errors in article

The section on first-to-invent practice in the U.S. was entirely incorrect. I inserted a brief blurb that generally outlines the requirements as supported by a citation to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). The MPEP is not an authoritative reference, but for copyright reasons I cannot cite to a reproduction of a full treatise (like Chisum).

The section on "relevant" art is also entirely incorrect. Attorneys refer to things as "relevant" art and not "prior art" because they do not want to concede that something is prior art. For instance, I might refer to a magazine article published a month before my client filed for a patent application as "relevant" or "related" art because I do not know if magazine is actually prior art - my client may have conceived his invention before publication of the article. Prior art has a legal meaning (as defined under 35 U.S.C. 102) while relevant or related art has no legal meaning or affect.

Gly - new contributor

I touched up a couple of things here and there. Just let me know if you'd like me to cite cases. Gly 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gly, thanks for your note. I was about to ask for citations, so yes, citing cases would be good. Will this be from US, EU or other jurisdiction?--Nowa 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prior art searching

I added a paragraph explaining some of the characteristics defining prior art searches and some key issues of the trade relating to them including references to USPTO statistics on patent applications and patent granting. The purpose of this paragraph is to provide inventors with some basic understanding of one of the most crucial steps on their way to a patent.--Carbonbase 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

German article reference

The German article reference is broken. It links to a "state of the art" topic. The correct translation is Antorität or better in the context of patent law Neuheitsschädlichkeit Arebenti 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Intellogist edit

Hi, I wanted to add something about the existence of the (free) Intellogist site but as a new user I guess I did it inappropriately (without references to a real news article describing the site, I think was the problem). Is there any way you feel this page could/should incorporate this site legitimately in accordance with wikipedia guidelines? Thanks for the help. Kwikiva (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Kwikiva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwikiva (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am afraid the web site does not appear to meet our guidelines, see Wikipedia:External links and in particular Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When Prior Art Applies

Hi. I'd like it to be made clear, somewhere in these articles, when something is prior art. For example, does an inventor have to maintain secrecy after filing an international patient application? Or are disclosures after the filing date not considered prior art. Eprayner (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

Sorry guys if this is not the right place, however, reference n.4 (http://www.gastle.com/bulletin5.htm) seems to be broken... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.32.34.99 (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have fixed it, though a better reference would be needed... --Edcolins (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Social Implications of First-to-File rule

A further discussion of first-to-invent versus first-to-file would be helpful, i.e. does first-to-file give an unfair advantage to wealthier individuals at the expense of those with less means for legal representation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.244.100 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First-to-file section deleted - need new one

There was a section about first-to-file but it contained nothing about prior art. The entire content, although interesting and accurate, was irrelevant to the topic of this article, so I removed it.[1]

However, first-to-file/invent does affect prior art, so there is stuff that could go in such as section. For example, to answer this question:

Let's say A has an idea on January 1st, and B has the same idea on January 10th.

A works diligently on a patent application, which he files on January 20th.

Meanwhile, B wrote about her idea in a blog entry on January 11th.

Can A validly get a patent, or does B's publication of the idea constitute prior art?

The question is for first-to-file, but if someone has an answer about first-to-invent or how this exposes a difference between them, that would be interesting too. This should be in the article.

That's the only first-to-file stuff that I can think of for the moment that would be on-topic in this article. Gronky (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)