Talk:Novelty (patent)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prior art search

I have removed the following sentence:

When an exhaustive search has been completed, a decision about patentability can be made based on tests referenced above.

An exhaustive search is in the realm of impossibility. --Edcolins 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EU bias

The section regarding novelty in U.S. is incorrect and misleading. If I have time I will draft an appropriate insert regarding 35 U.S.C. 102. In the mean time, here is a brief summary of the main novelty requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102:

A claimed invention is not novel, and an applicant may not receive a patent thereon, if:

(a) the applicant was not the first person to invent the claimed invention (the invention was previously used in the U.S. by others or previously described by others in a publication or patent anywhere). "Invent" does not equate with the date of filing, but rather the date on which the applicant reduced the invention to practice.

(b) the claimed invention was publicly disclosed (sold in the U.S., offered for sale in the U.S., described in a printed publication anywhere) more than one year before the applicant files for a patent application. Note: This is a "statutory bar" and is independent of the date of invention. If an invention is publicly disclosed, and the applicant fails to file for a patent application within one year, all patent rights to the claimed invention are lost. For this reason, inventors must be careful not to publicly disclose inventions before filing a patent application. Also, in contrast to 102(a), an applicant's own disclosure or activities may constitute a bar under 102(b).

(e) the claimed invention was disclosed in an issued U.S. patent, or published U.S. patent application, that was filed before the applicant invented the claimed invention. Note: "invent" does not equate with filing a patent application, so patent applicants can often show that they invented a claimed invention before the filing date of a patent reference, even if the patent reference was filed before the applicant's own patent application.

There are other, but rarely encountered, reasons for why a claimed invention may lack novelty.

[edit] Relative/Absolute Novelty

I believe that the terms as used in the article are incorrect.

Relative novelty/absolute novelty relate to USE of an invention outside of the country of filing and the terms are somewhat similar to the local novelty requirements (correctly) set out elsewhere in the article.

The grace period for self-disclosure is nothing to do with the relative/absolute novelty requirements. For example, autralia and the US are absolute novelty countries with grace periods for self-disclosure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.77.93 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)