tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post4161769854599867788..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Tips for arguing Unexpected Results Arguments to overcome obviousnessKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-19840740940729706722023-08-11T08:02:17.080-04:002023-08-11T08:02:17.080-04:00Great bloog postGreat bloog postChica Fitnesshttps://chica-fitness.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-42966620604201253032015-06-19T09:43:07.043-04:002015-06-19T09:43:07.043-04:00As I understand it, the assertion of unexpectednes...As I understand it, the assertion of unexpectedness can be in a post filing declaration. So different than EPO.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-74486613765071400842015-06-18T16:31:17.283-04:002015-06-18T16:31:17.283-04:00I hope you get a good thread on this issue, becaus...I hope you get a good thread on this issue, because I (MaxDrei) find it fascinating.<br /><br />Karen, it goes to the point we touched on in the earlier thread: civil law balance of probability vs common law evidence.<br /><br />It used to be that every US-originating specification I had to read contained the words "It has now been found, surprisingly and unexpectedly, that.... (something banal, like 2+2=4) .<br /><br />What is needed at the civil law EPO is that the application as filed makes it at least "plausible" that the invention does deliver results that are unexpected.<br /><br />Get past that and you can support with post-filed evidence.<br /><br />But if you didn't make it plausible, already on your filing date, no amount of post-filed corroboratory evidence will save you.<br /><br />Not so different in the USA. Or is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com