Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessing whether a claimed invention is obvious, a court will hear evidence from expert witnesses as to the knowledge and state of mind of a hypothetical skilled person at the relevant time, then “assume the mantle” of that person and assess whether the invention would have been obvious to him or her. The court may also consider the circumstances of the invention and its reception, most prominently whether there was a long-felt need and commercial success. This type of evidence is now commonly know as “secondary” evidence. The UK Court of Appeal has said that secondary evidence is substantively secondary to the evidence of expert witnesses, while in contrast in US law failure to consider secondary evidence is an error of law. This note argues that the view that so-called secondary evidence is inherently of lesser importance than the evidence of expert witness is wrong as a matter of policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".