DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining the Abstract of Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining the Abstract of Title View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) North Dakota Law Review Volume 46 Number 2 Article 1 1969 Examining the Abstract of Title J. Philip Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, J. Philip (1969) "Examining the Abstract of Title," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 46 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol46/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINING THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE J. PHILIP JOHNSON* Introduction Many otherwise experienced lawyers express dismay when a client appears with an abstract of title in hand. Even within the generalized practice of North Dakota, there are relatively few attorneys that handle the great majority of title examinations, usually in connection with the mortgaging of the property. There is no deep secret to the examination process but there is a certain amount of background and a few rules of practice that can be extremely helpful. The following is offered as an explanation and aid for title examination within this region and particularly this state. 1. HISTORY OF THE ABSTRACT-OPINION SYSTEM The system of real estate title examination common to the upper midwest region of the United States is based upon the opinion of a lawyer gained from examination of an abstract of the real estate records. As with most law, and most particularly real estate law, the practice is best explained by examining its history. Transfer of title in England, aside from the traditional enfeoff- ment method, involved a conveyance accompanied by transfer of the original documents of title.' For convenience, a summary or abstract of these documents was later furnished by the seller. In the colonies of North America, there developed a new system of public registration for conveyances of land.2 Plymouth Colony adopted such a requirement in 1636 to prevent fraud and confusion in regard to land titles.2 Similar acts followed in Massachusetts Bay, Virginia and other colonies. In 1795, based on the experience of the colonies and young states, the Northwest Territory of Ohio passed an act requiring that deeds not acknowledged or proved and recorded within twelve months of execution ". shall be adjudged fradulent and void against any subsequent purchaser, or * Ph.B. University of North Dakota, 1960; J.D. University of North Dakota, 1962; Georgetown University Graduate School of Law, 1964-65; Member of the firm of Pan- cratz, Wold and Johnson, Fargo, North Dakota. 1. See P. BASYE, CLEARING LAND TITLES § 3, at 4 (1953). 2. See 4 AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 17.4, at 527-30 (A.J. Casner ed. 1952). 3. Id. at 528. NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEW ' mortgagee, for valuable consideration 1 unless recorded before the deed of the purchaser. This Act served as a model for laws in many states to follow. 5 The State of North Dakota was formed out of the Louisiana Purchase and, along with other plains states, was occupied almost exclusively by Indian tribes until past the mid 19th century. The most prominent of these were the tribes of prairie cavalry known as Sioux, and in their own tongue, Dakota. Various territorial dis- tricts purported to include this area but the first effective adminis- tration was the territory of Dakota, established in 1861. Statehood came to North Dakota and South Dakota in 1889,6 and with it the growth of title records. A professional class of abstracters developed and in 1925 North Dakota adopted a comprehensive law regulating them, setting forth duties, rights, fees and a bond requirement for the benefit of those relying upon the abstract. 2. THE RECORDING ACTS One of the major authorities in the field of real estate law has concluded that ". the distinctive features of the American system of recording deeds are . indigenous. ' 7 The purpose of the system developed was to force all title documents onto a public record, replacing the earlier system of conveyance by one in possession and by the ceremony of public enfeoffment. Louisiana is apparently the only state varying from the basic concept of the recording acts and their system of deposit or registry arises from the earlier French statutes and Code Napoleon.8 The common law rule on successive conveyances by the same party of the same interest in land was quite simple, "first in time, first in right." 9 The recording acts of the various states fall into three basic categories: race type, notice type, and notice-race type. Under the "race" statute the first conveyance recorded has priority over any subsequently recorded conveyance. The "notice" statute would hold any unrecorded interest invalid against a sub- sequent bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer without notice. A combination of the two, the "notice-race" statute is used in a ma- jority of the states,10 including North Dakota." Priority here is given to the purchaser or encumbrancer who has taken his interest without notice and recorded it ahead of other instruments.12 4. Id. at 533. 5. Id. 6. 1 R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY § 92, at 347 (1969). 7. 4 A RICAN LAW or PROPERTY § 17.5, at 535 (A.J. Casner ed. 1952). 8. Id. § 17.4, at 534. 9. See e.g., 6 R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY § 912, at 269 (1969). 10. Id. § 913, at 277-78. 11. N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 47-19-41 and -45 (1960). - 12. " . [I]f the prospective buyer finds in the record evidence of a valid title in his EXAMINING THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE In connection with the basic provisions of the recording acts, there are ordinarily requirements to be met before an instrument may properly be recorded. Customarily this includes provisions for acknowledgment or attestation and, in North Dakota, the post office address of the grantee. 13 It has been generally held that instruments not entitled to be recorded or instruments out of the "chain of title" will not give "notice" under the recording acts. 14 This construction creates difficult problems in determining what is the "record" and some states, such as North Dakota, have resolved it by including all instruments that, in fact, are recorded against a tract. 15 3. THE ABSTRACT OF TITLE In various areas of the country, the use and significance of the abstract of title differs. In this region, its coverage and usage are perhaps most extensive. It must be remembered that the vendor of realty is generally under no obligation to prove his title, except as may be required by contract. 16 Custom and the requirements of mortgage financing have dictated the furnishing of abstracts. A few areas of this country may be considered in a pre-abstract stage, where community knowledge as to possession and previous ownership are the major factors relied upon. In other metropolitan and problem title areas there is what might be called a post-abstract stage where purchasers rely upon private certificates of title, Torrens title certificates or title insurance. 17 The greater part of the country still places primary reliance in the abstract of title and attorney's opinion. The abstract should show, in abbreviated form, the source of title and any transfers, claims, liens, encumbrances or other items of record that affect the title.18 Starting with an accurate caption of the real estate to be conveyed or mortgaged, the abstract should conclude with a certificate as to the period and the records covered. vendor, pays value for this title to his vendor in good faith reliance on the record and records his document of title before any other instrument showing an interest in a third party is placed of record, he will in most cases take precisely the interest the record in- dicatesd his vendor possesses whether the record is accurate or not." Crum, F#ve Steps To- wc.r Sounder Record Title, 32 N.D. L. REv. 223 (1956) ; see generally 4 AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 17.5, at 541 (A.J. Casner ed. 1952) ; 6 R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY § 913, at 277 (1969). 13. N.D. CENT. CODE § 47-19-05 (1960) ; see generally 6 R. POwE-L, REAL PROPERTY § 914 (1969). 14. Messersmith v. Smith, 60 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1953) ; see also J.. Case Co. v. Sax Motor Co., 64 N.D. 757, 256 N.W. 219 (1934) ; R. Patton, The Mechanics of Title Exami- nation, MINN. ST. B. ASS'N, MINN. TITLE STANDARDs Pt. II, at 4 (1964) ; 6 R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY § 914, at 278 (1969). 15. N.D. CENT. CODE § 47-19-41 (1960) ; N.D. ST. B. Ass'N, TITLE STANDARDS 1.021 (1962). 16. 1 R. PATTON, Trr s § 41, at 129 (2d ed. 1957). 17. Id. at 132. 18. See Exhibit A for example sheet of a North Dakota abstract of title. NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEW In North Dakota, the complete abstract would cover records from the following sources: 1. The instruments recorded with the register of deeds, primarily deeds and mortgages, but also miscellaneous items such as the new security interests in fixtures under the Uniform Commercial Code, and federal tax liens.19 2. Records from the offices of the county auditor and 2 0 treasurer relating to taxes attaching to the premises. 3. The Clerk of the District Court's record of judgments 21 and mechanic's liens.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application
    Library Start Your Business: Draft a Patent Application Azalea Ebbay Librarian, San Diego Public Library Roya Bagheri Staff Attorney, San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. Paul Yen Primary Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office June 10, 2020 Library Overview • Patent and Trademark Resource Center with Azalea Ebbay • San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. with Roya Bagheri • Learn How to Draft a Patent Application with Paul Yen Library Patent and Trademark Resource Center • Provide free access to patent and trademark resources provided by the USPTO • Direct you to information and explain the application process and fee schedule • Demonstrate how to use patent and trademark search tools • Show you a directory of local patent attorneys and agents who are licensed to practice before the USPTO • Assists with patent searches for an ancestor’s inventions • Offers free educational programs Note: We cannot provide business or legal advice. We cannot perform patent or trademark 2019 Start Your Business event searches. with San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. and Procopio Library Teaching patents to high school students for UCSD Rady School of Management’s LaunchPad Kid’s Invent It Month, a program children’s themed program Library You can borrow free small business eBooks with your library card on CloudLibrary. You can also pick up your holds at select San Diego Public Library locations. Library Our Final Event with the U.S.P.T.O. Trademark Application Walk-through with Jason Lott Date: June 17th Time: 2-3:30 p.m. PST Registration website: https://sandiego.librarymarket.com/events/start-your-business-trademark-application-w alk-through-webex-event Any questions? Azalea Ebbay, San Diego Public Library [email protected] (619) 238-6683 San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Prior Art and Possession
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 60 (2018-2019) Issue 1 Article 4 10-15-2018 Patent Prior Art and Possession Timothy R. Holbrook Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Repository Citation Timothy R. Holbrook, Patent Prior Art and Possession, 60 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 123 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol60/iss1/4 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr PATENT PRIOR ART AND POSSESSION TIMOTHY R. HOLBROOK* ABSTRACT Prior art in patent law defines the set of materials that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and courts use to determine whether the invention claimed in a patent is new and non- obvious. One would think that, as a central, crucial component of patent law, prior art would be thoroughly theorized and doctrinally coherent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prior art provisions represent an ad hoc codification of various policies and doctrines that arose in the courts. This Article provides coherency to this morass. It posits a prior art system that draws upon property law’s conception of possession. Possession operates when an actor asserts dominion over a resource or object in a way that communicates that assertion to third parties. In this way, public availability becomes the key lodestar to prior art. In the prior art context, the possession framework would divide prior art into two categories: prior art generated by third parties and prior art generated by the patent applicant herself.
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Convention
    No. 16208 MULTILATERAL Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (with Implementing Regulations, Protocol on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Deci sions in Respect of the Right to the Grant of a Euro pean Patent, Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organisation, Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction, and Protocol on the Interpretation of article 69 of the Convention). Concluded at Munich on 5 October 1973 Authentic texts: German, English and French, Registered by the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 January 1978. MULTILATERAL Convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens (Con vention sur le brevet européen) [avec Règlement d'exécution, Protocole sur la compétence judiciaire et la reconnaissance de décisions portant sur le droit à l'ob tention du brevet européen, Protocole sur les privilèges et immunités de l'Organisation européenne des brevets, Protocole sur la centralisation et l'introduction du système européen des brevets, et Protocole interprétatif de l'article 69 de la Convention]. Conclue à Munich le 5 octobre 1973 Textes authentiques : allemand, anglais et français. Enregistrée par la République fédérale d'Allemagne le 11 janvier 1978. Vol. 1065,1-16208 1978 United Nations — Treaty Series • Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités 255 CONVENTION1 ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS (EURO PEAN PATENT CONVENTION) CONTENTS Preamble Art. 18. Examining Divisions Part I. General and institutional provisions Art. 19. Opposition Divisions Art. 20. Legal Division Chapter I. General provisions Art. 21. Boards of Appeal Art. 1. European law for the grant of Art. 22. Enlarged Board of Appeal patents Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Prior Art – Time for Another Look Secret Prior Art –Time for by Andrew Berks* Another Look
    A Publication of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association April/May 2017 The Report In This Issue Secret Prior Art – Time for Another Look Secret Prior Art –Time for By Andrew Berks* Another Look ......................1,4-7 ecret prior art” refers to a pat- files the application, even if the other President’s Corner ......................2-3 “Sent application that is effective person’s work was totally unknown to as a prior art reference as of its filing the inventor, then the subject invention In Memoriam date, even though it does not become fails the novelty test and should not be MARY RICHARDSON .............. 3 known to the public until its publi- entitled to a patent. cation date.1 These types of prior art But as a form of public disclosure, A Statistical Look at PTAB references, falling within the scope there is a special class of patent Post-Grant Proceedings .........8-11 of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (or pre-AIA applications that may qualify as prior § 102(e)), have long been surrounded art: those that were filed before but PTAB Developments by controversy in obviousness-type published after the subject patent Involving CRISPR- invalidity arguments.2 This paper ex- application was filed. These so-called Cas9 Gene Editing amines the nature and history of this “secret prior art” patent applications Technology .........................12-15 problem and proposes a solution. are an artifact of the inherent delays in patent office procedures. For 95thAnnual Dinner in I. Conditions for Patentability example, in the United States, prior Honor of the Federal It is axiomatic under modern to 2000, patent applications were Judiciary .............................16-17 patent law systems that a patent claim kept secret until they issued.
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Procedure Explained
    European Patent Procedure Explained Patents in Europe When protecting an invention in Europe, you can either file a single European patent application covering 40 member states, or you can file individual national patent applications in each separate European state where you require patent protection. In general, if you require patent protection in more than a single national European state, it is likely to be more cost effective to file a European patent application under the European Patent Convention. European patent applications can take quite a long time to process. The average prosecution from filing to a decision on grant is around 44 months. Prosecution can be quicker in some individual national states. This is particularly true in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Additionally, short term patents (known as petty patents, or utility models), where there is generally a novelty requirement and either no inventive step requirement, or a lower level of inventive step requirement than for a European patent or a standard national patent, are available in some European states, for example Germany and Italy. These may have a cost or speed advantage over a standard national patent, or a European patent. However, for most inventions originating outside Europe, the European patent under the European Patent Convention, is the primary form of protection. European Patent - Overall Procedure From filing to grant, the stages are: - Filing the application: A full description, claims, abstract and where appropriate drawings, must be supplied at the point of filing. An application fee and search fee are also due on filing. The application can be filed in any official language of a member state, but a translation into English, French or German, the three official languages of the European Patent Convention, must be supplied shortly after filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Section 101 Patent Cases Decided After Alice V
    CHART OF POST-ALICE CASES (as of March 1, 2019) OVERVIEW PAGE I. CLAIMS INELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ........................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Software/Tech Patents (359 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (52 total) ....................................................................................................................................2 2. District Court Decisions (307 total) ..................................................................................................................................24 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (37 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (6 total) .....................................................................................................................................86 2. District Court Decisions (31 total) .....................................................................................................................................90 II. CLAIMS ELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ............................................................................................................................................ 99 A. Software/Tech Patents (170 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (13 total) ...................................................................................................................................99 2. District Court Decisions (157) .........................................................................................................................................105
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Novely Under Pre-Aia Law A. Introduction
    CHAPTER 6: NOVELY UNDER PRE-AIA LAW A. INTRODUCTION TO THE PRE-AIA VERSION OF § 102 .................................................... 1 B. § 102(b): THE GENERAL STATUTORY BARS ...................................................................... 3 C. §§ 102(c) & (d): RARE STATUTORY BARS ........................................................................... 6 1. Section 102(c): Abandonment ................................................................................................ 6 2. § 102(d): Late U.S. Application After Foreign Patenting ....................................................... 7 D. NOVELTY (REFERENCES TESTED BY INVENTION DATE) .......................................... 10 1. § 102(a): Publicly Available Prior Art .................................................................................. 11 2. § 102(e): Disclosures in U.S. Patent Applications ................................................................ 17 3. § 102(g)(1): Inventions Claimed in U.S. Applications ......................................................... 21 4. § 102(g)(2): Inventions Made In the United States ............................................................... 21 E. DATES OF INVENTION AND PRIORITY ............................................................................ 21 1. § 102(g)(1): Determining Priority in Interferences ............................................................... 24 a. Conception, Diligence and Reduction to Practice ............................................................ 25 b. “Abandoned,
    [Show full text]
  • MPEP § National Fees, and Publication of the Application
    Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty 1801 Basic Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) 1834 Correspondence Principles 1834.01 Filing of Correspondence by 1802 PCT De®nitions Facsimile 1803 Reservations Under the PCT Taken by, 1834.02 Irregularities in the Mail or Electronic and Noti®cations of Incompatibility Communications Service Made by, the United States of America 1835 [Reserved] 1804 [Reserved] 1836 Recti®cation of Obvious Mistakes 1805 Where To File an International 1837 [Reserved] Application -1839 1806 Applicants and Inventors 1840 The International Searching Authority 1807 Agent or Common Representative and 1840.01 The European Patent Of®ce as an General Power of Attorney International Searching Authority 1808 Change in or Revocation of the 1840.02 The Korean Intellectual Property Appointment of an Agent or a Common Of®ce as an International Searching Representative Authority 1809 PAIR Access 1840.03 The Australian Patent Of®ce (IP 1810 Filing Date Requirements Australia) as an International 1811 [Reserved] Searching Authority 1812 Elements of the International 1840.04 The Federal Service for Intellectual Application Property (Rospatent) (Russian 1813 [Reserved] Federation) as an International -1816 Searching Authority 1817 PCT Member States 1840.05 The Israel Patent Of®ce (ILPO) as an 1818 [Reserved] International Searching Authority 1819 Earlier Search 1840.06 The Japan Patent Of®ce (JPO) as an 1820 Signature of Applicant International Searching Authority 1821 The Request 1840.07 The Intellectual Property Of®ce of 1822 [Reserved]
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art, Classification, and Search
    Chapter 900 Prior Art, Classification, and Search 903.07 Classifying and Cross-Referencing 901 Prior Art at Allowance 901.01 Canceled Matter in U.S. Patent Files 903.07(a) Cross-Referencing — Keep Systematic 901.02 Abandoned Applications Notes During Prosecution 901.03 Pending Applications 903.07(b) Issuing in Another Technology Center 901.04 U.S. Patents Without Transfer 901.04(a) Kind Codes 903.08 Applications: Assignment and Transfer 901.05 Foreign Patent Documents 903.08(a) New Applications 901.05(a) Citation Data 903.08(b) Classification and Assignment to Examiner 901.05(b) Other Significant Data 903.08(c) Immediate Inspection of Amendments 901.05(c) Obtaining Copies 903.08(d) Transfer Procedure 901.05(d) Translation 903.08(e) General Regulations Governing the 901.06 Nonpatent Publications Assignment of Nonprovisional 901.06(a) Scientific and Technical Information Applications for Examination Center (STIC) 903.09 International Classification of Patents 901.06(b) Borrowed Publications for Inventions 901.06(c) Alien Property Custodian Publications 903.09(a) Locarno Classification Designations 901.06(d) Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive 904 How to Search Publications 904.01 Analysis of Claims 901.07 Arrangement of Art in Technology Centers 904.01(a) Variant Embodiments Within Scope 901.08 Borrowing References of Claim 902 Search Tools and Classification Information 904.01(b) Equivalents 902.01 Manual of Classification 904.01(c) Analogous Arts 902.01(a) Index to the U.S. Patent Classification System 904.02 General Search Guidelines
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 As Revised by the Act Revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act Revising the EPC of 29 November 20001
    Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 as revised by the Act revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 20001 Footnotes and cross-references are added for the convenience of the reader; they do not form part of the official text. 1 The new text of the Convention adopted by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation by decision of 28 June 2001 (see OJ EPO 2001, Special edition No. 4, p. 55) has become an integral part of the Revision Act of 29 November 2000 under Arti- cle 3(2), second sentence, of that Act. 1 European Patent Convention April 2021 PREAMBLE 8 PART I GENERAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 9 Chapter I General provisions 9 Article 1 European law for the grant of patents 9 Article 2 European patent 9 Article 3 Territorial effect 9 Article 4 European Patent Organisation 9 Article 4a Conference of ministers of the Contracting States 10 Chapter II The European Patent Organisation 10 Article 5 Legal status 10 Article 6 Headquarters 10 Article 7 Sub-offices of the European Patent Office 10 Article 8 Privileges and immunities 10 Article 9 Liability 11 Chapter III The European Patent Office 11 Article 10 Management 11 Article 11 Appointment of senior employees 12 Article 12 Duties of office 13 Article 13 Disputes between the Organisation and the employees of the European Patent Office 13 Article 14 Languages of the European Patent Office, European patent applications and other documents 13 Article 15 Departments entrusted
    [Show full text]
  • Title Glossary
    GLOSSARY A Word About Title Language The title industry has its own language. Many of its words and idioms are derived from the language of the law while others are common words given special meaning related to land titles. There are also words and phrases coined over the years by the title industry itself. While functions of the title industry are substantially the same throughout the nation, words describing or relating to the same thing often differ considerably in various parts of the country. Also, in many instances, several different words have substantially the same meaning. You will learn that a "closing" in one area is called a "settlement" in another; that a "take-off" is not a strip tease, or a "joint take-off" a marijuana orgy. You will also learn that a title plant is not something green growing in a garden; that an attachment is not an amorous affinity; that a suit is not a garment or wearing apparel; that an execution is not a public hanging; that prescription is not medication prepared at a drug store; that "writ" is not a colloquial past participle of "write;" that to condemn is not to censure or criticize; and that courts which deal with wills and estates of deceased persons are called "Ordinary's Court" in some states, in others "Orphan's Court," while in others they are called "Probate Court" and in still others, "Surrogate Court". Title company employees should know their industry's language. To assist you in this regard we have compiled this glossary of words and terms used in the title industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art in Inter Partes Review
    E15_YELDERMAN (DO NOT DELETE) 7/15/2019 9:44 PM Prior Art in Inter Partes Review Stephen Yelderman* ABSTRACT: This Essay is an empirical study of the evidence the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relies upon when cancelling patents in inter partes review. To construct our dataset, we collected every final written decision invalidating a patent claim over a twelve-month period. We coded individual invalidation events on a reference-by-reference, claim-by-claim basis. Drawing on this dataset, we report a number of details about the prior art supporting patent cancellation, including the frequency with which U.S. patents, foreign patents, and printed publications were cited, the frequency with which the invalidating prior art would have been amenable to a pre-filing prior art search, and whether the invalidating prior art was known at the time of examination. I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2706 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2709 III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 2715 A. COLLECTION AND CODING ..................................................... 2715 B. SELECTION EFFECTS ............................................................... 2717 IV. RESULTS ...................................................................................... 2719 A. ANTICIPATION VS. OBVIOUSNESS ............................................ 2719 B. CATEGORIES OF PRIOR ART ...................................................
    [Show full text]