[9] Prior art may also be submitted by the public for consideration in examination or in opposition or invalidity proceedings.
To anticipate the subject-matter of a patent claim, prior art is generally expected to provide a description sufficient to inform an average worker in the field (or the person skilled in the art) of some subject matter falling within the scope of the claim.
[11] Information covered by non-disclosure agreements or similar may not be considered to have been disclosed to the public and thus not prior art.
As a special exception, earlier-filed and unpublished patent applications do qualify as prior art as of their filing date in certain circumstances.
In one U.S. case on the issue, the court said: One attacking the validity of a patent must present clear and convincing evidence establishing facts that lead to the legal conclusion of invalidity.
§ 103, certain factual predicates are required before the legal conclusion of obviousness or nonobviousness can be reached.
[9] Prior art may also be submitted by the public for consideration in examination or in opposition or invalidity proceedings.
A novelty search helps an inventor determine if the invention is novel before committing the resources necessary to obtain a patent.
Crowdsourcing, where a large number of interested people search for prior art, may be effective where references would otherwise be difficult to find.
[26][27][28] Australia has abolished its duty of disclosure with regard to the results of documentary searches by, or on behalf of, foreign patent offices, except where: With the advent of the Internet, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to create a forum where the public at large can participate in prior art searches.
More recently, different attempts to employ open Internet-based discussions for encouraging public participation commenting on pending U.S. applications have been started.
These may take the form of a wiki: Patent examiners often use the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as a reference to get an overall feel for a given subject.
[30][31] Citations of Wikipedia as actual prior art can be problematic, however, due to the fluid and open nature of its editing, and Patents Commissioner Doll said the agency used Wikipedia entries as background and not as a basis for accepting or rejecting an application.