Matt Whiting wrote in
:

I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around
pretty much since the first version of their software, which must be
at least three years ago.

It probably means it took them that long to get through the USPTO.

Rule of thumb on IP cases is that prior art must have been known from the
date of patent filing and two years before that. Cases have been won on
thinner evidence, but that's a good place to start.

As for what constitues "prior art" - it really must be exact. In the
initial negotiations the patent holder claims their patent covers "Earth
and sky, and everything in between" and those accused of infringing claim
it is specific only to the holder's product. Then when it gets to prior
art, the tables turn. My experience is that most IP attorneys are not
interested in examples of prior art that are not themselves patents -
although if you rub their noses in it (product sold at K-Mart), they can be
swayed.

But the devil is in the details. Just a slight difference in a couple of
words in a claim can equate to days at a Markman hearing arguing
construction (definition).

jmk