Talk:state of the art

state of the art
Rfv-sense: distinct legal sense. No OneLook reference lemming has a separate legal sense. Also the wording seems amateurish as it incorporates a specific time reference, whereas I expect that the time reference is almost always derived from implicit or explicit context. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is largely a correct definition. A patent that is challenged as having been obvious at the time the application was submitted (obviousness being grounds for overturning the patent) is reviewed in light of the state of the art at the time the application was submitted, which courts often abbreviate be referring only to the state of the art. bd2412 T 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are there no lemmings with us on this? DCDuring TALK 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beats me, but here are some citations from Supreme Court cases. The first explicitly states "at the time". The second doesn't use such a qualification, but is in the context of patent law, can only be referring to the state of the art when the application was made (developments thereafter being irrelevant to patent validity). The third uses the phrase twice but only qualifies it in the first usage, and not immediately after the phrase:
 * Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 180 (1853):
 * The apparatus, essential to develop this property, would at once suggest the material parts, especially in the state of the art at the time.
 * Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat'l Bank, 135 U.S. 342, 372 (1890):
 * Judge Lowell held claim 3 to be invalid on the ground that, if it was a claim irrespective of any particular means for carrying it out it was void as a patent for a principle, independently of the state of the art; and that, in view of the state of the art, it was void.
 * R.R. Co. v. Dubois, 79 U.S. 47, 65 (1871)
 * The only remaining assignment of error is, that the court declined instructing the jury as requested, that in considering the question whether the plaintiff was or was not the first and original inventor of the improvement described in his patent, they might and ought to consider the evidence in the cause in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers known at the time of the alleged invention of the plaintiff. ... While, therefore, evidence in regard to the state of the art was proper to be considered by the court in construing the patent and determining what invention was claimed, it had no legitimate bearing upon the question whether the patentee was the first inventor.
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 00:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My first problem with the definition is that it seems that in use the appropriate time frame of reference would necessarily either be explicit or implicit in context. If, in a court case report or law-review article, there were two different unqualified "states of the art" under discussion, it would presumably be the more-recently-referred-to one that would be the reference, not necessarily the "legal" sense. Ie, the date is not guaranteed to be limited. In the overall context of patent law the specific time frame of our legal sense is simply the most likely to show up. It doesn't really seem inherently distinct, which is, I think, why we are alone on this.
 * My second problem is that, if the default assumption of a specific time frame is the only differentiator between "plain or garden variety" and "legal" "state of the art", why are the definitions worded differently in any regard other than the specific time frame. The existence of two definitions with somewhat different wording forces the user to look for some other distinction where apparently none exists. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how this would be hard to distinguish from the other definition offered. bd2412 T 02:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose . - -sche 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So it has been done. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)