Comment on White House responds to Patent PetitionparentComments−cpeterso14y> We've also issued new guidance to examiners to help ensure that patents cover only "new" and "non-obvious" inventions.So "new" and "non-obvious" weren't already requirements?? That explains a lot.−anamax14y> So "new" and "non-obvious" weren't already requirements?? That explains a lot.On the off chance that you weren't being ironic, novelty and non-obviousness (to one "skilled in the art") have been requirements for decades.The author of "we've issued new guidance" is either playing you for a sap or doesn't know patent law.
Comments
> We've also issued new guidance to examiners to help ensure that patents cover only "new" and "non-obvious" inventions.
So "new" and "non-obvious" weren't already requirements?? That explains a lot.
> So "new" and "non-obvious" weren't already requirements?? That explains a lot.
On the off chance that you weren't being ironic, novelty and non-obviousness (to one "skilled in the art") have been requirements for decades.
The author of "we've issued new guidance" is either playing you for a sap or doesn't know patent law.