[Leaplist] FYI, evidence of realities of IP

[Phil Barnett]

On Wednesday 17 January 2007 19:02, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Define "obvious".
>
> One click ordering,  html links to name a couple. There are gray areas, but
> a lot of patents have been awarded waaaaay into the obvious zone.

No, you don't understand my point. While those examples may be correctly 
identified stupid patents, they are not a definition of what "obvious" is. 
That is the problem. Until you can define what "obvious" means, you can't use 
it as a criteria. It's like trying to define what "Common Sense" means. I 
know it when I see it, but it's nearly impossible to define it in a way that 
someone who doesn't have it can understand.

So, unless you can define what "obvious" means to a patent officer so that he 
can put his decision up to a measurement scale and make an unambiguous 
decision, then it has no place in the decision process. At that point, it's 
merely a platitude.

-- 
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up 
and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill