Prior Art - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: prior artprior art
prior art : the processes, devices, and modes of achieving the end of an alleged invention that were known or knowable by due diligence before and at the date of the invention ;also : the knowledge or description of such processes, devices, or modes used chiefly in patent law ...
anticipation
anticipation : the knowledge or use of an invention in the U.S. or the patenting or describing of the invention in a publication in the U.S. or a foreign country before the discovery by a patent applicant NOTE: Case law has established that every claim or element of a claim has to be disclosed in the prior art in order for a patent application to be barred by anticipation. If an application is amended to consist of claims not disclosed in the prior art, invalidation by anticipation can be avoided. ...
obvious
obvious : easily seen, discovered, or understood ;specif : readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in a particular art considering the scope and content of the prior art see also patent NOTE: An invention that is found to be obvious cannot be patented. ob·vi·ous·ness n ...
prior consistent statement
prior consistent statement : a witness's statement made out of court prior to testifying that is consistent with the witness's testimony compare prior inconsistent statement NOTE: A prior consistent statement may be offered as evidence to rebut a charge that a witness's testimony is fabricated, provided that the witness is available to be cross-examined. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1), a prior consistent statement of a witness testifying at trial and subject to cross-examination is not hearsay. ...
anticipate
anticipate -pat·ed -pat·ing 1 : to bar or invalidate (a patent) by anticipation [the patent on the compound had been anticipated by the Beilstein reference "Misani v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 210 A.2d 609 (1965)"] 2 : to negate the novelty of (an invention) by its appearance in prior art [appeared to have anticipated a variable light makeup mirror "Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Co., 503 N.Y.S.2d 334 (1986)"] ...
prior inconsistent statement
prior inconsistent statement : a witness's statement made out of court prior to testifying that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony and that may be offered to impeach the witness's credibility compare prior consistent statement NOTE: If a prior inconsistent statement was made under oath subject to the penalties of perjury at a previous proceeding (as a deposition or grand jury hearing), the statement is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) and may be offered to prove that what was asserted in the statement is true. ...
Prior
Preceding in the order of time former antecedent anterior previous as a prior discovery prior obligation used elliptically in cases like the following he lived alone in the time prior to his marriage...
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, [Lat.], subsequent lasws repeal prior conflicting ones. See Madan Lal Gupta v. Ravinder Kumar, (2001) 1 SCC 252.--2 Rol. Rep. 410.--(Later laws abrogate prior contrary laws.) See REPEAL....
prior restraint
prior restraint : governmental prohibition on expression (esp. by publication) before the expression actually takes place see also Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States in the Important Cases section compare censorship, freedom of speech NOTE: In New York Times Co. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court restated its position that “any system of prior restraints” bears “a heavy presumption against constitutional validity” and that the government “carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” ...
Prior or previous
Prior or previous, may be implied if the contextual situation or the object and design of the legislation demands it, Graphite India Ltd. v. Durgapur Projects Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 645.The word 'prior' or 'previous' may be implied if the contextual situation or the object and design of the legislation demands it but there are no such compelling circumstances justifying reading any such implication into s. 29(1). On the other hand, the indications are all to the contrary. On a perusal of the several, different sections of the very Act, that the Parliament has not been unmindful of the need to clearly express its intention by using the expression 'previous permission' whenever it was thought that 'previous permission' was necessary. In s. 27(1) and 30, it is to be seen that the expression 'permission' is qualified by the word 'previous' and in ss. 8(1), 8(2) and 31, the expression 'general or special permission' is qualified by the word 'previous', whereas in s.s 13(2), 19(1), 19(4), 20, 21...
- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial