The Experts below are selected from a list of 949143 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Brenda M Simon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rules standards and the reality of Obviousness
2014Co-Authors: Brenda M SimonAbstract:The great question of patent law, Obviousness, is a muddle. Attempts to clarify the doctrine face a significant obstacle: the goal of providing efficient and cost-effective prosecution limits the amount of time patent examiners can spend determining Obviousness. As a result, examiners use the analogous arts test as a rough gauge of Obviousness during prosecution. The hope was that the analogous arts test would provide an efficient, rules-based approach to Obviousness. The Federal Circuit has not, however, provided much guidance on how to apply the analogous arts test, resulting in a soft rule, at best. While this uncertainty may be tolerable during prosecution, where time-pressed examiners can be forgiven for relying on common sense among other things, courts should no longer rely on the outdated analogous arts test as a shortcut to find inventions obvious. During litigation, more time and resources can be spent on the Obviousness assessment. At that time, decision-makers should use a more appropriate standard, requiring assessment of common practices in the field of invention and whether the invention is obvious in light of them. This shift in the focus of the Obviousness analysis during litigation should result in a more accurate determination of Obviousness when it matters most.
-
rules standards and the reality of Obviousness
Case Western Reserve law review, 2014Co-Authors: Brenda M SimonAbstract:Obviousness, the great question of patent law, is a muddle. Attempts to clarify the doctrine face a significant obstacle—the goal of providing efficient and cost-effective prosecution limits the amount of time patent examiners can spend determining Obviousness. As a result, examiners use the analogous arts test as a rough gauge of Obviousness during prosecution. The hope was that the analogous arts test would provide an efficient, rules-based approach to Obviousness. The Federal Circuit has not, however, provided much guidance on how to apply the analogous arts test, resulting in a soft rule, at best. While this uncertainty may be tolerable during prosecution, where time-pressed examiners can be forgiven for relying on common sense among other things, courts should no longer rely on the outdated analogous arts test as a shortcut to find inventions obvious. During litigation, more time and resources can be spent on the Obviousness assessment. At that time, decision makers should use a more appropriate standard, requiring assessment of common practices in the field of invention and whether the invention is obvious in light of these practices. This shift in the focus of the Obviousness analysis during litigation should result in a more accurate determination of Obviousness when it matters most. † Associate Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Non-Resident Fellow, Stanford Law School. Thanks to Deven Desai, John Duffy, Hank Greely, Tim Holbrook, Eric Lane, Mark Lemley, Orly Lobel, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, Jake Sherkow, Ted Sichelman, Howard Strasberg, Marketa Trimble, and participants at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conferences at Stanford Law School and Cardozo Law School, the Distinguished Speaker Series at Whittier Law School, and the Corporate Innovation and Legal Policy Seminar and PatCon4 at the University of San Diego for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 65·Issue 1·2014 Rules, Standards, and the Reality of Obviousness
-
the implications of technological advancement for Obviousness
2012Co-Authors: Brenda M SimonAbstract:This Article examines whether advances in technology can make an invention too obvious to deserve a patent. It focuses on two developments in technology with the most pervasive effect on cognition in recent decades: the availability of information in a searchable form and increased processing capabilities. The assumption has been that access to information and computing power will result in better understanding, improved creativity, or decreased uncertainty, when it in fact may not. I propose that courts and examiners, in assessing Obviousness, look at whether persons of ordinary skill in the art actually appreciated the applicability of technological advances at the time in question. Those skilled in diverse technological fields often adopt advances to different degrees and at varying rates. Refocusing the Obviousness determination on what actually happens helps guard against hindsight bias.
Lily Yeesheung Wong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
research on teaching process product research findings and the feelings of Obviousness
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1995Co-Authors: Lily Yeesheung WongAbstract:To address the charge that research findings are obvious, this study examined the perceived Obviousness of 12 findings of process-product research on teaching. Twelve hundred and fifteen volunteers in Singapore and in the San Francisco Bay Area rated the degree of Obviousness of each finding after (a) attempting to select the actual finding from two possible opposite outcomes, (b) reading a single outcome that was either the actual or the direct opposite of the actual finding, or (c) reading a single outcome plus an explanation for the outcome. The selections of actual findings and the ratings of Obviousness of actual or opposite-of-actual findings indicated that respondents could not always distinguish the true findings from their opposites. Explanations tended to increase the rated Obviousness of the findings. Differences in gender, knowledge about teaching, and cultural background had inconsistent effects on the judgments of Obviousness.
Uzi Vishkin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pram on chip a quest for not so obvious non Obviousness
Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 2004Co-Authors: Uzi VishkinAbstract:Consider situations where once you were told about a new technical idea you reacted by saying: “but this is so obvious, I wonder how I missed it”. I found out recently that the US patent law has a nice formal way of characterizing such a situation. The US patent law protects inventions that meet three requirements: utility, novelty and non-Obviousness. Non-Obviousness is considered the most challenging of the three to establish.
-
MFCS - PRAM-On-Chip: A Quest for Not-So-Obvious Non-Obviousness
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004Co-Authors: Uzi VishkinAbstract:Consider situations where once you were told about a new technical idea you reacted by saying: “but this is so obvious, I wonder how I missed it”. I found out recently that the US patent law has a nice formal way of characterizing such a situation. The US patent law protects inventions that meet three requirements: utility, novelty and non-Obviousness. Non-Obviousness is considered the most challenging of the three to establish.
-
pram on chip a quest for not so obvious non Obviousness
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004Co-Authors: Uzi VishkinAbstract:Consider situations where once you were told about a new technical idea you reacted by saying: but this is so obvious, I wonder how I missed it. I found out recently that the US patent law has a nice formal way of characterizing such a situation. The US patent law protects inventions that meet three requirements: utility, novelty and non-Obviousness. Non-Obviousness 1 is considered the most challenging of the three to establish. The talk will try to argue that a possible virtue for a technical contribution is when, in restrospect, its non-Obviousness is not too obvious; and since hindsight is always 20/20, one may often need to resort to various types of circumstantial evidence in order to establish non-Obviousness. There are two reasons for bringing this issue up in my talk: (i) seeking such a virtue has been an objective of my work over the years, and (ii) issues of taste in research are more legitimate for invited talks; there might be merit in reminding younger researchers that not every result is necessarily also a contribution; perhaps the criterion of not-so-obvious non-Obviousness could be helpful in some cases to help recognize a contribution. The focus of the second focal point for my talk, the PRAM-On-Chip approach, meets at least one of the standard legal ways to support non-Obviousness: Expressions of disbelief by experts constitute strong evidence of non-Obviousness. It is well documented that the whole PRAM algorithmic theory was considered unrealistic by numerous experts in the field, prior to the PRAM-On-Chip project. In fact, I needed recently to use this documentation in a reply to the U.S. patent office. An introduction of the PRAM-On-Chip approach follows. Many parallel computer systems architectures have been proposed and built over the last several decades. The outreach of the few that survived has been severely limited due to their programmability problems. The question of how to think algorithmically in parallel has been the fundamental problem for which these architectures did not have an adequate answer. A computational model, the Parallel Random Access Model (PRAM), has been developed by numerous (theoretical computer science) algorithm researchers to address this question during the 1980s and 1990s and is considered by many as the easiest known approach to parallel programming. Despite the broad interest the PRAM generated, it had not been possible to build parallel machines that adequately support it using multi-chip multiprocessors, the only multiprocessors that were buildable in the 1990s since low-overhead coordination was not possible. Our main insight is that this is becoming possible with the increasing amounts of hardware that can be placed on a single chip. From the PRAM, as a starting point, a highly parallel explicit multithreaded (XMT) on-chip processor architecture that relies on new low-overhead coordination mechanisms and whose performance objective is reducing single task completion time has been conceived and developed. Simulated program executions have shown dramatic performance gains over conventional processor architectures. Namely, in addition to the unique parallel programmability features, which set XMT apart from any other current approach, XMT also provides very competitive performance. If XMT will meet expectations, its introduction would greatly enhance the normal rate of improvement of conventional processor architectures leading to new applications.
Jo Rose - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
team reasoning and collective rationality piercing the veil of Obviousness
Acta Psychologica, 2008Co-Authors: Andrew M Colman, Briony D Pulford, Jo RoseAbstract:The experiments reported in our target article provide strong evidence of collective utility maximization, and the findings suggest that team reasoning should now be included among the social value orientations used in cognitive and social psychology. Evidential decision theory offers a possible alternative explanation for our results but fails to predict intuitively compelling strategy choices in simple games with asymmetric team-reasoning outcomes. Although many of our experimental participants evidently used team reasoning, some appear to have ignored the other players' expected strategy choices and used lower-level, nonstrategic forms of reasoning. Standard payoff transformations cannot explain the experimental findings, nor team reasoning in general, without an unrealistic assumption that players invariably reason nonstrategically.
N L Gage - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Obviousness of social and educational research results
Educational Researcher, 1991Co-Authors: N L GageAbstract:Highly estimable writers have averred that well nigh all of the results of social and educational research are obvious, that is, could have been predicted without doing the research. To examine the justifiability of this allegation, one should examine its accord with actual research results. Thus, is it a "truism" that higher achievement comes about when students spend more time with the subject matter? That smaller groups are easier to control than larger groups? Do judges regard actual results as more obvious and statements of their opposites as nonobvious ? Both the century-old research results of Joseph Mayer Rice and recent results throw light on these issues.
