Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (New York Times)Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (New York Times)Posted Nov 22, 2012 21:39 UTC (Thu) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656)In reply to: Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (New York Times) by Cyberax Parent article: Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (New York Times)
> Because it has devolved into "it's not obvious if a brain-dead patient can't do this".
Really? The "Problem Solution Approach" (PSA) has an element of hindsight in that you look at the claims and see if you can combine two documents or one combined with common general knowledge to get there. Arguing against PSA is not trivial, if even possible.
One thing to keep in mind is that the analysis for inventive step has to be framed based on the state of the art at the priority date, not the state of the art of present time which can easily be 5 years after the priority date. Hindsight is not supposed to be used for this analysis.
Finding a good objective method to determine inventive step is hard and the discussions on how to do it have been ongoing for decades. USPTO, UKIPO, JIPO and EPO all have different methods.
(Log in to post comments)
Apple Now Owns the Page Turn (New York Times) Posted Nov 29, 2012 14:07 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link]
Well, your arguments make a lots of sense. Telling that something is not obvious is indeed difficult. The simplest solution: assume everything is obvious. The other possibility, assuming that nothing is obvious, is currently being tested and does not work well.
|
|||||||||||||