Rado v.
Tye
citation(s): [1969] F.S.R. 563 (Lord Upjohn)
|
Rado v.
|
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
"In order to form a judgment upon the question whether this claim was obvious, of course the prior art must be carefully examined and the first question to be answered plainly is, having considered the prior art: to whom for the purposes of the section should it appear that the alleged invention is obvious and involves no inventive step?"
"So the test of obviousness must be decided by consideration of what would be obvious in the light of the prior art to men to science and employers of labour, rather than to the workman of ordinary skill."
Return to:
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index