Can a Patent Search be TOO good?
At BML we work with both inventors and patent attorneys and agents. Often I have had attorneys and sometimes clients as well suggest that it is risky to make a patent search that is too thorough.
Their reasoning is driven by the premise that its not smart to tell a patent examiner about some piece of prior art that he might use against you. I'm told the reason for this is that the law requires that you share with the patent office anything that you learn that is relevant to your case
This principal is similar to an attorney telling a defendant not to share information with the police that might then be used against them in court.
I disagree with this concept but I'm open to input and I encourage those of you who disagree with me to comment on this article.
Here's my argument. Unlike the prosecution in a criminal case the the patent examiner has access to the same library of information as does the inventor. The examiner also has access to the same or superior searching tools. The examiner will always do their own prior art search, in fact if you check your bill from the USPTO you will find you have paid for it.
If you don't do a thorough search you risk the examiner finding something out that you and your attorney have had no chance to prepare for. I've had this happen to my clients several times and it is always a very unnerving and disruptive experience. This is particularly true when the examiner doesn't show his or her cards all at once but turns up a new piece of prior art every time the attorney and inventor succeed in neutralizing an earlier one.
My feeling is that it is far better to follow the Boy Scout motto and "Be Prepared" by knowing what the examiner might use against you and have crafted the claims to defeat arguments that might be made using that information.
There is however, one time when I agree with the other side of this discussion . An examiner may combine pieces of prior art using an "obvious combination" argument. I agree its not smart to make those combinations and then have to share them with the examiner, because unlike particular pieces of prior art, the examiner has no database of "obvious combinations" to search and must determine those combinations him or herself. Its probably better not to share strong combinations if the examiner might devise weak ones when left to use his or her own resources.