[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: hi

• To: "'bob@w...'" <bob@w...>, 'Frank' <frank@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: hi
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:29:30 -0600

Again, see the case that he may not be sure 
it is really prior art.  I know it is illegal 
to knowingly fool a patent examiner.  Prove 
he did that.

That is one reason patent litigation is expensive.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@w...]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:24 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Frank'; xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  hi


Claude L Bullard wrote:
> Unfortunately, it isn't illegal and that is 
> all that will stop some businessmen.
	You are wrong if this is in response to the question: "Is
knowingly filing a patent application for which there is prior art
'business'?" At least, you are wrong according to use law.
	Given the special relationship between the patent examiner and
the applicant for a patent, US law requires that the inventor, and his
agents, etc. exercise a "duty of candor". This requires them to notify
the examiner of any and all prior art, etc. that the examiner might
find material. Note: This is much broader than requiring the inventor
only disclose things that would definitively influence the examiner.
If you can prove that an inventor did not reveal prior art, even if
that prior art could not be said to definitively invalidate the
patent, then you can get the patent overturned based on that alone.
	Inventors are not allowed to pull the wool over the examiner's
eyes. If they can be caught doing so, they get punished.

		bob wyman

• Prev by Date: RE: hi
• Next by Date: RE: regular expressions
• Previous by thread: RE: hi
• Next by thread: RE: hi
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread