All tagged 35 USC 102

What do Contingent Fee Lawyers Consider when Evaluating Novelty and Non-Obviousness?

Patent lawyers must consider the question of novelty and obviousness when considering a case on a contingent fee basis. Lack of novelty due to anticipation is rarely a dispositive factor during a contingent fee licensing program.  Typically the more significant issue becomes combinations of art with "expert" arguments that "it would have been obvious" to come up with the invention.  However, with knowledge of the law, inventors can take action to establish a factual record of objective evidence of non-obviousness throughout the inventive process to combat future “obviousness” rejections.