Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3262 comp.misc:12734 comp.dcom.modems:10062 misc.legal:26412
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!sialis!orbit!pnet51!kurt
From: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems,misc.legal
Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit
Message-ID: <5013@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 28 May 91 17:45:01 GMT
Sender: news@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 28

It has been said that what Hayes patented was not new or novel, so I
thought I would post how novelty is currently defined, from the
government booklet "General Information Concerning Patents":
 
   In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as
   defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot
   be patented if--
 
   "(a) The invention was known or used by others in this country, or
    patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
    foreign country, before the invention therof by the applicant for
    patent or,"
 
   "(b) The invention was patented or described in a printed
    publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
    sale in this country more than one year prior to the application
    for patent in the United States....."
 
    ***
 
    The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently
    different from what has been used or described before that it
    may be said to be unobvious to a person having ordinary skill
    in the area of technology related to the invention.

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org