Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/19550Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Roy, B N | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-07-05T10:00:23Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-07-05T10:00:23Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 1998-03 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0975-1076 (Online); 0971-7544 (Print) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/19550 | - |
| dc.description | 59-67 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | This article deals with, statutes and practice of law in assessing novelty and obviousness/ inventive step, which are the key factors for the grant of a parent Novelty i.e. anticipation is rather straightforward, since the prior art should not only mention this but the disclosure must be an enabling one. Obviousness is a complex issue. Various factors have to be taken into account like scope and contents of prior art, motivation in prior art, level of ordinary skill in the art, difference between prior art and claimed invention, objective evidence of non- obviousness etc. The issues involved in both product and process claims have been discussed with the help of various pronouncements of British and US law courts. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | NISCAIR-CSIR, India | en_US |
| dc.rights | CC Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India | en_US |
| dc.source | JIPR Vol.03(2) [March 1998] | en_US |
| dc.title | Novelty and Obviousness in Patent Law | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | JIPR Vol.03(2) [March 1998] | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JIPR 3(2) 59-67.pdf | 1.61 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in NOPR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.