---
title: "Build a prior-art hit table for novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/build-a-prior-art-hit-table-for-novelty-inventive-step-or-non-obviousnes"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A23-T1-R1"
practice_area: "Intellectual Property — Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Build a prior-art hit table for novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness

> Search the patent collections and literature the lawyer names and table candidate hits with numbers, dates and a first-pass mapping to claim elements.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/build-a-prior-art-hit-table-for-novelty-inventive-step-or-non-obviousnes  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Intellectual Property — Patents, Trade Marks, Copyright, Designs](https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Search the patent collections and literature the lawyer names and table candidate hits with numbers, dates and a first-pass mapping to claim elements. |
| What the lawyer must review | Open every cited document Confirm the number, date and what it actually discloses Do not treat a mapping summary as a novelty opinion |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
3. Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Prior-art table for a standard patent](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/standard-patent-prior-art-table.md) | Checklist | Yellow | Table of prior art against the standard-patent requirements in section 18(1). It does not say the invention is patentable, and it is not a filing at the office. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/intellectual-property-patents-trade-marks-copyright-designs/build-a-prior-art-hit-table-for-novelty-inventive-step-or-non-obviousnes/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*