Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/design_law/statuses/111002791372468057">Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein (design_law@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:10 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law" title="design_law@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/22838-48-20221111001622.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein</a><div><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111002788017805863" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>No, this is not some kind of inappropriate incongruity.</p><p>This is the difference between anticipation and obviousness.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/2020724#notice-3965995">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-09-04T04:27:10+09:00" title="Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:10 JST">Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:10 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111002791372468057" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111002791372468057">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1481837">"More specifically, the incongruity creates a situation where, for example,
Design 1 does not infringe a patent claiming Design 2, but that
same Design 2 could (if earlier in time) render Design 1 as obvious, even
though Design 1 does not fall within the scope of the patent on Design 2.
See Mueller &amp; Brean, supra, at 547 (explaining in further detail this incongruity)."</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/788/408/383/887/original/016378305c4c0e9b.jpg" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/788/408/383/887/original/016378305c4c0e9b.jpg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein (design_law@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:10 JST Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein
in reply to
No, this is not some kind of inappropriate incongruity.
This is the difference between anticipation and obviousness.
In conversationMonday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:10 JST from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. "More specifically, the incongruity creates a situation where, for example, Design 1 does not infringe a patent claiming Design 2, but that same Design 2 could (if earlier in time) render Design 1 as obvious, even though Design 1 does not fall within the scope of the patent on Design 2. See Mueller & Brean, supra, at 547 (explaining in further detail this incongruity)."
  https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/788/408/383/887/original/016378305c4c0e9b.jpg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice