Talk:Point of novelty

Flook[edit]

Flook is said to adopt a different approach. AFAIK Flook applied a trick: it considered a (non-patentable) algorithm part of the prior art by way of fiction, so that it effectively still was ignored despite the (nominally) "whole contents approach". I leave it to an American lawyer to update the article. Rbakels (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggest merger w novelty[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

novelty (patent) is the main concept and point of novelty belongs there, is actually a needed subsection in conjunction with the definition. This article is too short to stand on its own and receives only a fraction of the pageviews of its parent.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the "point of novelty" approach is at least controversial, if not obsolete. Wasn't it abendoned in the 1952 Patent Act? It appears similar to the German "Kerntheorie"(core theory) which was formally abandoned but keeps being used under different guises since it was forbidden.

Merger may not be appropriate if the (sub)topic is controversial, in contrast to "novelty" in general. On the other hand, controversiality is very much a reason to keep it in Wikipedia. Rbakels (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.