東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique...

Hashim, Mohamed R.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement./
Author:	Hashim, Mohamed R.
Description:	55 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International51-05(E).
Subject:	Patent Law. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=MR85210
ISBN:	9780494852101

Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement.
Hashim, Mohamed R.

Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement. - 55 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.

Thesis (LL.M.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2012.

A patent is often characterized as a bargain between an inventor and society. Generally, for a patent to be considered valid, an invention must satisfy three broad criteria: it must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This paper focuses on the requirement of non-obviousness. It explores the criterion from inception to its current state and suggests a potential refinement. A multi-jurisdictional snap-shot is presented focusing on the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. It is submitted that the non-obvious prerequisite contains a problematic level of uncertainty. The law of obviousness lacks a baseline standard. To achieve certainty, it is suggested that the law adopt the principles pertaining to patenting combinations and aggregates. Ultimately the law of patents, inclusive of the doctrine of obviousness, must be fashioned and administered in a manner that respects the quid pro quo that has guided the law for many years.

ISBN: 9780494852101Subjects--Topical Terms:

1679968
Patent Law.

Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement.
LDR:01791nam a2200265 4500 001 1958678
005 20140426115101.5
008 150210s2012 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780494852101
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAIMR85210
035 $a AAIMR85210
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Hashim, Mohamed R. $3 2093828
245 1 0 $a Is it Obvious? A Review and Critique of the Non-Obviousness Patent Requirement.
300 $a 55 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.
500 $a Adviser: Abraham Drassinower.
502 $a Thesis (LL.M.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2012.
520 $a A patent is often characterized as a bargain between an inventor and society. Generally, for a patent to be considered valid, an invention must satisfy three broad criteria: it must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This paper focuses on the requirement of non-obviousness. It explores the criterion from inception to its current state and suggests a potential refinement. A multi-jurisdictional snap-shot is presented focusing on the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. It is submitted that the non-obvious prerequisite contains a problematic level of uncertainty. The law of obviousness lacks a baseline standard. To achieve certainty, it is suggested that the law adopt the principles pertaining to patenting combinations and aggregates. Ultimately the law of patents, inclusive of the doctrine of obviousness, must be fashioned and administered in a manner that respects the quid pro quo that has guided the law for many years.
590 $a School code: 0779.
650 4 $a Patent Law. $3 1679968
690 $a 0562
710 2 $a University of Toronto (Canada). $b Law. $3 2093829
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 51-05(E).
790 $a 0779
791 $a LL.M.
792 $a 2012
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=MR85210