W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > September 2003

prior art and obvious.

From: Alex Rivero <arivero@unizar.es>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:45:57 +0200
To: "web-plugins" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200309021845.23744.arivero@unizar.es>


  I believe most of the things we are speaking about are not
straight prior art, but they can -should- be used to claim
obviousness. As far as I understand, if it can be showed,
based on prior inventions, that the patent claims are
obvious for any engineer, then the patent is invalid.
Is this the plan?

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 12:46:10 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Richard M. Smith: "RE: prior art and obvious."
Previous message: Hector Santos: "Re: Software Patents Prior Art: lack of due diligence by the LARGEST SOFTWARE COMPUTER IN THE WORLD"
Next in thread: Richard M. Smith: "RE: prior art and obvious."
Reply: Richard M. Smith: "RE: prior art and obvious."

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:55 GMT