SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range
QCOM 177.24-0.8%Oct 30 3:59 PM EDT
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JGoren who wrote (4936)3/28/2009 1:04:59 PM
From: Rich Bloem  Read Replies (1) of 9129
 
John, I agree with your interpretation of Prior Art. However, one of the problems is that most patents simply cite prior art in general. If the patent has a multitude of claims it becomes a major burden for the examiner to determine how the prior art intercepts the claims. One of the proposals in the new Patent Reform Laws being contemplated, is something called a PIN Cite. This would require that any prior art being cited needs to be referenced to a specific paragraph or sentence in a specific claim.

IMO, citing prior art does not necessarily mean your claims build on that prior art. It could very well be the opposite and be cited to show that your claim is entirely different from that prior art and would not be logically concluded by those familiar with the state of the art. In other words, the applicant may simple be showing that we are aware of this prior art and our system is dramatically different from their claims.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News