Subject: Re: Patent Act of 2005
From: Will Rodger <will@osaia.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:26:15 -0400

Bruce Perens wrote:

>John Cowan wrote:
>
>  
>
>>No, I'm not.  Can you give or point to an explanation of the distinction?
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>There's some interesting material on prior art in the MPEP at
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm#sect2128
>Prior art that invalidates a patent claim can come from many different
>sources.
>

That's correct. Prior art as defined by the draft would likely be harder 
to produce than it is now. Current law, for instance, lets you cite from 
literally any publication cataloged in any library in the world.

The new standard defines reasonably and effectively accessible 
as"subject matter (that) can be accessed and comprehended, without 
resort to undue efforts, by persons of ordinary skill in the art to 
which the subject matter pertains."

More important is the proposed "post-grant review" process by which 
anyone could present prior art in order to show that certain patents are 
invalid.(Can you say wiki?)

There are many sections to the Committee Print, which is laden with all 
manner of patent office legalities not apparent to the non-specialist. 
OSAIA/CCIA and a bunch of other folks will be weighing in on the rest of 
it in the coming weeks.

cheers,

Will