[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'halber@idea.net.pl' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)


Hartmut Pilch wrote:

1. 90-95% of all patents granted are valid according to PTO criteria


Where can I find PTO criteria?


I meant the patent office's own criteria.

Of course it is difficult to decide validity according to unclear criteria
such as those which the EPO uses for occasional refusal of a business
method patent (such as Pension Benefit System in 2000).  But 'novelty'
should still be fairly straightforward: >90% of the patents should succeed
in citing all relevant prior art.

Don’t you think that a patent ombudsman with strong institutional backing could be a right answer?
This office could represent public interests in individual cases and with the end of his/her term present more general proposals for patent reform.





(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)