Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347107
 
 

Footnotes (40)



 


 



Controlling Patent Prosecution History


Thomas G. Field Jr.


University of New Hampshire School of Law (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center)

February 20, 2009

Pierce Law Review, Vol. 8, p. 228, 2010

Abstract:     
This comment considers the importance of building prosecution records adequate to rebut arguments that may later be advanced by infringers to invalidate patent claims for obviousness. This is difficult when patentees face prior art that, for whatever reason, was unlikely to have been discovered, much less distinguished, during prosecution. Unless challenges can be rebutted with evidence of unexpected results developed during prosecution, allegalions of unexpected results may be rejected as in the classic Graham case.

Yet the recent KSR case demonstrates that it may be nearly as difficult to distinguish art readily available to both applicants and examiners but not considered during prosecution.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 6

Keywords: Prosecution history, obviousness, unexpected results, examiner competence

JEL Classification: K10, K23

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 20, 2009 ; Last revised: October 31, 2010

Suggested Citation

Field, Thomas G., Controlling Patent Prosecution History (February 20, 2009). Pierce Law Review, Vol. 8, p. 228, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347107

Contact Information

Thomas G. Field Jr. (Contact Author)
University of New Hampshire School of Law ( email )
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 741
Downloads: 95
Download Rank: 156,701
Footnotes:  40
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.312 seconds