[ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?

[John Levine]

It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
>Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered 
>filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small 
>set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".  (I 
>don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I 
>certainly hope it does not.)

I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and what's prior art.

You're right, the searches for software patents used to be terrible so
they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and all.

It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
review. Anything published more than a year before the application was
filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count. 

They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to apply,
while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
10 thereafter.

R's,
John