Re: [Patents] "person skilled in the art"

[David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing@gmx.net>]

As I understand patent law, the patent must be non-obvious to someone 
skilled in the art.

It does not matter if the examinator is skilled in the art or not. He 
must be able to assess if someone else who is skilled in the art will 
find this non-obvious. But it help if the examinator is skilled too...

From what I know, if you are scientist in a lonely university where you 
make not a lot of money but interesting research... it is very tempting 
to become a patent examiner.

It require however frequently to speak german, to work in germany, ...

My point is that not only money that should go in R&D goes to lawyer for 
making patent submission. But also great mind from university become 
unproductive because the patent system pay them more than the 
fundamental research.

David GLAUDE

Erik Josefsson wrote:
> But my question was a technical one.
>
> As was pointed out by MEP Willi Rothley in the debate in JURI in June
> 2003, "new" is objective, but the judgement of a "person skilled in the
> art" is inherently subjective (my texts says).
>
> If I challange a patent in court for being "obvious", do I challange the
> "person skilled in the art" who said it was "non-obvious"?

--
Don't let computer expert control election...
Endorse: http://www.free-project.org/resolution/
For Belgium: http://www.poureva.be/