Talk:Novelty (patent)

Prior art search

I have removed the following sentence:

When an exhaustive search has been completed, a decision about patentability can be made based on tests referenced above.

An exhaustive search is in the realm of impossibility. --Edcolins 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the reference to novelty as a "test". Novelty is rather a "requirement" for patentability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.117.138 (talk • contribs)

EU bias

The section regarding novelty in U.S. is incorrect and misleading. If I have time I will draft an appropriate insert regarding 35 U.S.C. 102. In the mean time, here is a brief summary of the main novelty requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102:

A claimed invention is not novel, and an applicant may not receive a patent thereon, if:

(a) the applicant was not the first person to invent the claimed invention (the invention was previously used in the U.S. by others or previously described by others in a publication or patent anywhere). "Invent" does not equate with the date of filing, but rather the date on which the applicant reduced the invention to practice.

(b) the claimed invention was publicly disclosed (sold in the U.S., offered for sale in the U.S., described in a printed publication anywhere) more than one year before the applicant files for a patent application. Note: This is a "statutory bar" and is independent of the date of invention. If an invention is publicly disclosed, and the applicant fails to file for a patent application within one year, all patent rights to the claimed invention are lost. For this reason, inventors must be careful not to publicly disclose inventions before filing a patent application. Also, in contrast to 102(a), an applicant's own disclosure or activities may constitute a bar under 102(b).

(e) the claimed invention was disclosed in an issued U.S. patent, or published U.S. patent application, that was filed before the applicant invented the claimed invention. Note: "invent" does not equate with filing a patent application, so patent applicants can often show that they invented a claimed invention before the filing date of a patent reference, even if the patent reference was filed before the applicant's own patent application.

There are other, but rarely encountered, reasons for why a claimed invention may lack novelty.

The requirement for absolute novelty in Europe is that the invention must not have been disclosed to the public, by written or oral meas, or by any other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.117.138 (talk • contribs)

Relative/Absolute Novelty

I believe that the terms as used in the article are incorrect.

Relative novelty/absolute novelty relate to USE of an invention outside of the country of filing and the terms are somewhat similar to the local novelty requirements (correctly) set out elsewhere in the article.

The grace period for self-disclosure is nothing to do with the relative/absolute novelty requirements. For example, Australia and the US are absolute novelty countries with grace periods for self-disclosure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.77.93 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is correct. Having a grace period does not make a country a "relative novelty" country. Powersofpersuasion (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is correct. Absolute novelty relates to the requirement that the invention must not have been disclosed anwhere in the world before, by any means. Relative novelty relates to the requirement that the invention must not have been used or publish in a specific way in relation to the region that the patent is being filed in. For instance it may have been used overseas, but not published overseas to retain novelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.117.138 (talk • contribs)

There appears to be some confusion in this article concerning "grace period". Commonly, this is taken to refer to the period of twelve months allowed under US patent law which allows for a patent application to be filed after disclosure of the invention by the applicant. In other jurisdictions such as UK and EPC, the grace period is usually used to refer to the period of six months permitter under the Paris Convention which permits a patent application to be filed after disclosure made in breach of confidence. Without this provision such a disclosure would destroy the novelty of the subsequently filed patent appliction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.39.59 (talk • contribs)

Why has this not been corrected? I cannot do so myself as it would involve majorly restructuring the article to separate out the two completely separate issue (first-to-invent and grace periods on the one hand and absolute, relative and local novelty as a completely different matter. I just don;t have the time to do it. Will someone please step up up to the plate?

This canker of nonsense has been festering here for FIVE YEARS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.89.57 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out to this unreferenced material in the article. This was long overdue indeed. I have removed the contentious information and rearranged the article's lead section, which was much too long. --Edcolins (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)