Patent has multiple prior art, why is the multiple prior art not preventing the grant of it?


In reference to the patent: US8470388

COUNTRY - Patent Number United States - 8470388 Australia - 2013207081 Austria - EP2801242 China - CN104115561B Czech Republic - EP2801242 EPO - EP2801242 France - EP2801242 Germany - 60 2013 011 574.5 Italy - EP2801242 Mexico - MX336165 Netherlands - EP2801242 New Zealand - 628041 Poland - EP2801242 Singapore - 11201403300X Slovakia - EP2801242 South Africa - 2014/05710 Spain - EP2801242 Sweden - SE2801242 Switzerland - EP2801242 Turkey - 2016-GE-501932 United Kingdom - EP2801242

Normally this patent should be subject to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.

It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.

This "inventor" has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.

They did not "invent the materials" nor the "methodology for EL lights", nor the EL technology as such.

Prior abandoned and expired patents: 2002: (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)

One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.

Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007) (2009)

Prior art:

Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008:

In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012:


Posted 2017-07-27T08:34:55.183

Reputation: 41

how can this been granted? It hasn't been.

– DonQuiKong – 2017-07-27T09:06:53.510

Your link clearly states the document is a patent application. Why do you think it has been granted? – Eric S – 2017-07-27T14:29:02.747

You may want to get worked up about these actually issued patents by the same inventors:,

– Eric S – 2017-07-27T15:03:17.597

If somebody wants to add an answer, mention tpos please. – DonQuiKong – 2017-07-27T16:31:57.520

You could edit the question to ask about preventing the grant of this app. – DonQuiKong – 2017-07-27T16:35:33.107

I did edit the question with "why is the multiple prior art not preventing the grant of it?" Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007)link(2009)link

– user19473 – 2017-07-28T16:40:03.787

Surely the answer is simply that the examiner thought it to be allowable over the prior art they had at hand: can anything more really be said? As such, I'm not sure what the question we could answer is at this stage. – Maca – 2017-07-29T03:03:40.187

1The links lead to a patent issued in the USA in 2013. Not sure why it is not considered "granted". – Upnorth – 2017-07-29T03:37:06.190

The “grant” is instrumental of infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of contract or of any other right, towards this prior thesis published in 2012. The “grant” is instrumental to Plagiarism. Regarding the examiner thought it to be allowable over the “prior art they had at hand at that time” simply has not considered or missed the insights of the full extent available on prior art

– user19473 – 2017-07-29T04:20:23.647

No answers