From pb@breese.fr  Tue May  8 18:01:01 2001
From: pb@breese.fr (Pierre Breese)
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:01:01 +0200
Subject: [Patents] consultation questions
In-Reply-To: <20010508185445.D26826@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
Message-ID: <B71DF2ED.18CD%pb@breese.fr>

> 
> From posting 1 (legal definition of obvious):
>> See the "examiners directives" concerning the "problem solution approach" :
>> 1 - identifying the closest prior art document
>> 2 - determining the objective problem not solved by prior art embodiment
>> 3 - show the technical solution provided by the claimed invention
>> 4 - verifying if the same solution to a similar "objective probleme" exist
>> in prior art.
> 
> From posting 2:
>> The programmer is "the skilled man of the art". If the technical embodiment
>> that solve a problem is "easy", this embodiment is obvious, in application
>> of patent law...
> 
> I find the two postings contradictory.
Posting 1 describes one method for verifying if the claimed invention is
obvious, in the meaning of EPC (posting 2)....


Pierre
(Sorry, Ramon, I must interrupt our discussion...)



