f*********d
发帖数: 35 | 1 BTW, the term normally used is "non-obvious", not "unobvious". |
|
p*********g
发帖数: 9527 | 2 any unobvious improvement is patentable. RiBenRen can shut up now. |
|
r*******r
发帖数: 33 | 3 我怎么觉得要obvious，跟别的区别大什么的啊？不知自己理解上出了什么问题。 |
|
c*******i
发帖数: 951 | 4 Because it is a 14-year monopoly. Such a monopoly can be justified when
there is sufficient long-term benefit to the society to outweigh the short-
term harm of the monopoly. If the patent is obvious, there is insufficient
long-term benefit. |
|
n***e
发帖数: 461 | 5 I'd say google before asking question or giving a reply. |
|
f**********h
发帖数: 38 | 6 The basic idea is that you can not get a patent for some trivial improvement
of an existing invention. Read MPEP sections concernign 35 USC 103.
14 year monopoly? Which country's patent law are we talking about?
In US, it's 17 years from issue (before) or 20 years from filing (now). |
|
g**c
发帖数: 12 | 7 design is 14 yrs
improvement |
|
g*********i
发帖数: 281 | 8 who are you?
it looks like we are twins... |
|
g**c
发帖数: 12 | 9 oops... copyright infringement
need to hire a lawyer |
|
L**P
发帖数: 3792 | 10 行
但是最好再进一步argue你的dependent claims 4－6的limitations也unobvious
这样即使第一个arguement失败，claim 1不成，claims 4－6不至于立刻没戏
..
not |
|
L**P
发帖数: 3792 | 11 The key is at "几乎一模一样", how similar? Both can be novel and unobvious,
even if they look similar, as long as they are not identical.
Also, if no damage or threat, sue for what?
2012 |
|
