Looking at Patent Law: Patenting a Trivalent Chromium Plating Invention: Obviousness Rejections – Not So Obvious

E. Jennings Taylor; Maria Inman

首页> 外文期刊>The Electrochemical Society interface >Looking at Patent Law: Patenting a Trivalent Chromium Plating Invention: Obviousness Rejections – Not So Obvious

【24h】

Looking at Patent Law: Patenting a Trivalent Chromium Plating Invention: Obviousness Rejections – Not So Obvious

机译：看专利法：专利是一个三价镀铬发明：显而易见的拒绝 - 不是那么明显

获取原文

掌桥外文数据库（机构版） >>

开具论文收录证明 >>

文献代查 >>

页面导航

摘要
著录项
相似文献
相关主题

摘要

In this installment of the "Looking at Patent Law" articles, we discuss obviousness rejections in view of a case study of a trivalent chromium plating invention. We have chosen this invention to align with the sustainability focus of this issue of Interface. The article begins with a brief review of obviousness followed by a brief description of the trivalent plating invention. The article concludes with a case study of the inventions/patent applications related to the trivalent plating process with a focus on the obviousness rejections.

机译：在这一分期上的“看专利法”文章中，鉴于对三价铬镀铬发明的案例研究，我们讨论了显而易见的拒绝。我们选择了本发明可以与界面问题的可持续性焦点对齐。本文首先介绍了对显而易见的综述，然后是三价镀电镀发明的简要描述。本文缔结了与三价电镀过程相关的发明/专利申请的案例研究，重点是显而易见的拒绝。

著录项

来源
《The Electrochemical Society interface》 |2020年第3期|共7页
作者
E. Jennings Taylor; Maria Inman;
展开▼
作者单位

展开▼
收录信息
原文格式 PDF
正文语种
中图分类
关键词

相似文献

外文文献
中文文献
专利

1. U.S. Gene Patents in Legal Limbo - for Now: USPTO's Rejection of Kubin Patent Due to Obviousness Raises Questions [J] . Janis K. Fraser Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News: The Information Source of the Biotechnology Industry . 2008,第7期

机译：合法专利权中的美国基因专利-目前：USPTO因显而易见性而拒绝Kubin专利引发了疑问
2. House of Lords provides guidance on the law of obviousness in patent actions; increased opportunities to obtain supplementary protection certificates for combinations of active ingredients; patent for DNA and protein sequence invalid due to lack of industrial application [J] . Michael Burdon, James Armstrong, Catherine Katzka, Journal of generic medicines . 2008,第1期

机译：上议院就专利诉讼中的明显性法律提供指导;增加了获得有效成分组合的补充保护证书的机会;由于缺乏工业应用，DNA和蛋白质序列专利无效
3. Double Patenting and Process Patents; Apparently, Oxford, U.K., Is Not in California; When Does the Two-Way Test for Obviousness Apply?; Illumina Sues for Infringement of Analytical Technology Patent; Ruling in Favor of Affymetrix Overturned; Abbott Ordered to Pay $1.67 Billion; BASF Sues Pioneer Hi-Bred for Unlawful Use of Technology; DuPont Countersues Monsanto; Beckman, Orchid, and Sequenom Suit Dropped [J] . Biotechnology Law Report . 2009,第4期

机译：双重专利和工艺专利；显然，英国牛津不在加利福尼亚；双向性显而易见性测试何时适用？ Illumina起诉分析技术专利侵权；有利于Affymetrix的裁决被推翻；雅培被命令支付16.7亿美元；巴斯夫因非法使用技术而起诉Pioneer Hi-Bred；杜邦反诉孟山都公司；贝克曼（Beckman），兰花和西贡（Sequenom）西装掉落
4. WHAT EVERY PLASTICS PROFESSIONAL SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PATENTS AND PATENTING - PART 4: THE NON-OBVIOUSNESS REQUIREMENT FOR PATENTABILITY IN LIGHT OF KSR v. TELEFLEX [C] . Amad Tayebi Annual technical conference of the Society of Plastics Engineers;ANTEC 2011 . 2011

机译：每个塑料专业人士都应该了解专利和专利的知识-第4部分：根据KSR诉TELEFLEX，对专利的非显而易见性要求
5. Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement. [D] . Hashim, Mohamed R. 2012

机译：很明显吗？对非显而易见性专利要求的审查和批判。
6. What Is Your Reasonable Expectation of Success in Obtaining Pharmaceutical or Biotechnology Patents Having Nonobvious Claimed Inventions That the Courts Will Uphold? An Overview of Obviousness Court Decisions [O] . Daniel J. Pereira, Stephen G. Kunin 2015

机译：您对成功获得法院将支持的具有显而易见的要求保护的发明的制药或生物技术专利有何合理的期望？显而易见的法院判决概述
7. THE NON-OBVIOUSNESS REQUIREMENT IN THE CHILEAN PATENT LAW: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT [O] . Fernando Fernández 2011

机译：智利专利法的非明显要求：批判性评估

Looking at Patent Law: Patenting a Trivalent Chromium Plating Invention: Obviousness Rejections – Not So Obvious

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅