2

A section labeled "Background" is customary but not strictly required. Background means background. Such a section is about the state of the world before your invention and does not mention or even hint at your solution. It is a dangerous section because since by the definition of background it is presumed to be in the past and relevant. Anything in it ...


2

I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with many while writing up my patents. If there is a particularly relevant piece of prior art it is often useful to go ahead and include a discussion of it in the specification so as to proactively teach how your invention is different and novel. Sometimes patent examiners get hung up on a particular piece of prior art and ...


1

1) It doesn't, if you describe your invention effectively and claim it well, it should be given to an expert at the USPTO that knows a significant amount of background. If you have prior art, cite it in an IDS. 2) To provide context of the invention. Typically there are too many pitfalls and little benefits and so it no longer serves its purpose 3) Yes it ...


1

My experience is that (at least at the USPTO) there is no burden to prove the truth of the specification or that the patented technology actually works. I'm guessing their logic is that if a useless technology is patented, it doesn't really harm anyone since no one would want to practice it. Unfortunately, an issued patent may suggest a level legitimacy to ...


1

You must sufficiently teach your invention in your non provisional description and also in any cited provisional. But you are not required to analyze the prior art in a detailed background section; that is what patent examiners do. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/23/beware-background-pitfalls-when-preparing-a-patent-application/id=19982/ It's been said ...


1

Now, I'm not concerned with my invention being too similar when compared with the industrial extractor. It may be worth revisiting this point while taking into account that changes in size or scale almost never justify patentability. I don't have case cites on hand, but they should be easy to dig up. It would only be patentable if some non-obvious ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible