[harikb]

I believe this is already the case. One is supposed to look for prior art. In fact, most patents build on something else and do list prior art.

The problem with proving something is an exact copy is just the nature of our field - anything can be argued as a copy or innovation.

Most ideas that get patented are reasonable next steps from an existing idea anybody in the profession with half a brain will take.

[greensoap]

Slight correction on your first point.

There is no requirement that one looks for prior art. 37 CFR 1.56 requires that an applicant disclose pertinent prior art that is already known to the applicant or his lawyer and disclose prior art that the applicant becomes aware of during the application process.