Share
648 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 157
clock Created with Sketch. 02/07/23
16:20
Share
Originally posted by BobF:
↑
Well I had certainly assumed that was the case. I recall Albert Einstein being a patent examiner for a while. Not that that has anything to do with this, but it indicates the level of scrutiny that has always traditionally gone into the scientific integrity of the patent examination procedure. I have no personal experience in the area, but I have read plenty of patent applications including many that start out 'pending' that get granted, and many more that are rejected from account of flaws. The race is often to get the application into the system to ensure the precedence. Many applications get quickly rejected for what seem to be minor imperfections or abiguities, and especially if they have similarities to other similar patents. That is why the language has to be so definitively clear (patent lawyers = $$$$). That all just seems like the system doing its job. One part of that job used to be that the device has to be demonstrated on request to the examiner, just to show it works as claimed. Have times really changed that much, even in China? I can see that China could be encouraging its citizens to dream up novel ideas and try to patent them, But this is not a cheap exercise. I certainly cannot imagine it will be cheap when you are doing this is a semiconductor fab!
Expand
You definitely do not need to demonstrate a device to get a patent. Often it is the grant of the patent that secures the funding to try and build the thing, with assurance that if it works then it can be commercially sold without competition for a number of years!
(20min delay)