Template talk:PatentLaw
Why putting "prior art" under non-obviousness? "Prior art" is equally relevant for novelty and inventive step. Why putting "person skilled in the art" under non-obviousness? "Person skilled in the art" is also relevant for inventive step. --Edcolins 22:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- It's true, and no good reason. I was actually thinking that perhaps a better categorization might be Patentability objections. The patent templates that existed currently were very deficient. So I'm really just trying to work it out. Mmmbeer 03:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- If the template is to be included in some articles, I would suggest to make it "internationally neutral". "Small entity status" and "Interference proceeding" are US-specific concepts. Also, what about making links to treaties and so on? This would rapidly become very long though... A U.S. patent law template instead (as a first step)? I created this one: Template:European Patent Organisation. --Edcolins 19:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Could we just create a link to a patent law category for treaties and such? I agree that making the fundamental patent law template more international. My expertise is not there though. My real premise is that there is very little in the way of consistent navigation from a->z in the patent law topics, that is, without clicking through inline links. Mmmbeer 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- If the template is to be included in some articles, I would suggest to make it "internationally neutral". "Small entity status" and "Interference proceeding" are US-specific concepts. Also, what about making links to treaties and so on? This would rapidly become very long though... A U.S. patent law template instead (as a first step)? I created this one: Template:European Patent Organisation. --Edcolins 19:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)