Timeline for Benefit of omitting drawing and patent number of prior art in background?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 1, 2016 at 9:35 | comment | added | Maca | I've never known of delay from omitting a reference to relevant prior art. The examiner will just do a search from first principles. It may make the examiner's (and reader's) job harder, but that's not a problem for the applicant. In addition, I don't know of any jurisdiction where there can be a rejection based on omitting prior art references. The US has information disclosure requirements, but they don't form part of the specification. In Europe, the description has to be amended to refer to cited documents, though this is done during prosecution. | |
| Mar 1, 2016 at 1:42 | comment | added | daniel | Thanks for the comment. Regarding the first point, could omission also lead to delay? For me, it's frustrating reading patents that do not clearly define the difference with/improvement over prior art. Are there cases where the examiners reject application due to lack of description of the patent background? | |
| Feb 29, 2016 at 13:34 | history | answered | Maca | CC BY-SA 3.0 |