That's part of it.
That's part of it. Other factors that tend to show non-obviousness include being the first to have the idea to make the gadget in the first place; serving an unmet need; combining steps/parts that convention suggests should not be combined; commercial success with the invention; the combination producing surprising results; and so on. Proving non-obviousness is well trod ground in litigation and in patent examinations. It is often the hardest criteria to get over. Though typically obviousness can be proven by finding two or more printed publications that in combination disclose the claimed invention. In this example, the novelty in the claim at issue is related to using a transfer criteria that is a subject identification of the image...wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the image. This was added as the final amendment to get the patent over the prior art the examiner cited. If one can find evidence in [edit: one or more] printed publications that this was going on before 8/8/2008, the patent can be invalidated easily. Otherwise, it will be a slog of litigation.
Posted by pnw_hazor on Sep 25, 2019, 11:57 PM
Tags
Related issues
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
- > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
- Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
- > our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.3,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
> our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Why is there no contact form?
The biggest problem with plugging a generator into an outlet is you need a double ended cord.
That's part of it.
That's part of it. Other factors that tend to show non-obviousness include being the first to have the idea to make the gadget in the first place; serving an unmet need; combining steps/parts that convention suggests should not be combined; commercial success with the invention; the combination producing surprising results; and so on. Proving non-obviousness is well trod ground in litigation and in patent examinations. It is often the hardest criteria to get over. Though typically obviousness can be proven by finding two or more printed publications that in combination disclose the claimed invention. In this example, the novelty in the claim at issue is related to using a transfer criteria that is a subject identification of the image...wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the image. This was added as the final amendment to get the patent over the prior art the examiner cited. If one can find evidence in [edit: one or more] printed publications that this was going on before 8/8/2008, the patent can be invalidated easily. Otherwise, it will be a slog of litigation.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.