[Patents] consultation questions

[pb@breese.fr (Pierre Breese)]

> But "obviousness" is something subjective.

Sorry, obviousness is not something subjective. It has to be demonstrate in
a convincing way, on basis of a proven prior art, and an argumentation. In
Europe, we us the "problem solution approach" which is quite efficient for
an objective demonstration of obviousness (or not obviousness).
 
> I know that the Amazon 1-Click patent is obvious.
May be. I'm not involved in this case, and I can't give you peremptorily an
serious opinion. You can't just proclaim "AMAZON's patent claim 1" is non
obvious. In fact, did you ever :
1 - Read the claims of Amazon patent ?
2 - Identify prior art document
3 - Structure a demonstration of nullity of amazon's claims based on this
prior art ?
   
> 
> I can say it is obvious, but the judges of the Board of Appeals insist
> that it is not obvious. They can, because obviousness is not an
> objective criterion.
> 
Probably, Barnes & Nobles tried to demonstrate that Amazon's patent claims
was null, without success. May be, you are in possession of prior art proves
neglected or ignored by B&N's patent agents.
But by conscious that a patent litigation is not just an open discussion,
and you can't just assert "this invention is obvious".

Pierre BREESE