What sort of prior art is the company looking for?

"The case will turn on whether there is prior art."

There's no such thing as the concept of prior art any more.

There is prior art on a lot of the technologies.

There is obviously many example of prior art and that will be shown in court.

I think a lot of "prior art" was developed by Apple as well.

The documents mentioned in the search report usually form part of the prior art.

The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part of the prior art.

The closest prior art need not however be a document.

Such disclosures do not form part of the prior art.

It's only a definition of prior art, which I've already covered.

There should be some prior art that the lawyers overlooked.

Again, Apple did a nice job, but there certainly was "prior art" to many of the ideas going into the air.

Not everyone is optimistic that the problem of prior art can be solved.

Only the prior art itself will be brought to the examiner's attention."

With such an obligation, the information is typically not regarded as prior art.

These problems are examples of difficulties encountered by the prior art.

Commentators said that significant prior art exists for the concept.

Most things are inspired by prior art, but blocking them all would put an end to innovation.

Over one hundred thirty potential prior art references have been submitted.

It was decided that an important area of focus should be collaboration on searching prior art in the business method field.

Or, you can release it and claim prior art.

The public may, however, provide prior art to examiners during a two month window after an application is published.

If inventive steps are required, the prior art will not be considered as enabling.

The important thing in establishing prior art is to make sure that a document has a clear publication date.