{"id":1147,"date":"2026-06-03T03:33:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T03:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/?p=1147"},"modified":"2026-06-03T03:47:12","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T03:47:12","slug":"prior-art-search-patent-invalidation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/prior-art-search-patent-invalidation\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior Art Search for Patent Invalidation: 6 Key Steps"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>When a company gets sued for patent infringement, the most powerful card it can play is often this: the patent should never have been granted. Proving that takes evidence, and that evidence comes from a <strong>prior art search<\/strong>. A prior art search is the disciplined hunt for earlier patents, publications, products, and disclosures that show an invention was already known or obvious before the patent&#8217;s filing date. Done well, it can dismantle a patent that looked airtight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is not casual Googling. A defensible prior art search for patent invalidation is methodical, documented, and built to survive scrutiny at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or in federal court. This guide explains what a prior art search is, why it matters in litigation, how to run one step by step, where the best references hide, the mistakes that sink weak searches, and how a strong search turns the tables on an aggressive patent owner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-rank-math-toc-block\" id=\"rank-math-toc\"><h2>Table of Contents<\/h2><nav><ul><li><a href=\"#what-it-is\">What Is a Prior Art Search for Patent Invalidation?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#why-it-matters\">Why a Prior Art Search Matters in Litigation<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#how-to\">How to Conduct a Prior Art Search, Step by Step<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#sources\">Where Prior Art Hides: Sources Worth Searching<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#ptab\">PTAB, Inter Partes Review, and the Estoppel Trap<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#mistakes\">Common Mistakes That Weaken a Prior Art Search<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#examples\">Real-World Examples<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#how-we-help\">How PerspireIP Can Help<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#killer-reference\">What Makes a Reference a &#8220;Killer&#8221; Reference?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#timing\">Timing: When to Search and Who Should Do It<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#bottom-line\">The Bottom Line on Search Quality<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#conclusion\">Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#faq\">Frequently Asked Questions About Prior Art Searches<\/a><ul><li><a href=\"#what-counts-as-prior-art-in-a-prior-art-search\">What counts as prior art in a prior art search?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#how-is-an-invalidation-search-different-from-a-patentability-search\">How is an invalidation search different from a patentability search?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#why-search-non-patent-literature\">Why search non-patent literature?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#what-is-ipr-estoppel\">What is IPR estoppel?<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"#can-i-run-a-prior-art-search-myself\">Can I run a prior art search myself?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-claim-chart.jpg\" alt=\"prior art search claim chart mapping references to patent claims\" class=\"wp-image-1120\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-claim-chart.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-claim-chart-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-claim-chart-1024x684.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-claim-chart-768x513.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-it-is\">What Is a Prior Art Search for Patent Invalidation?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A prior art search for invalidation looks backward in time. Its goal is to find anything that was publicly available before the challenged patent&#8217;s priority date and that describes the same invention, or makes it obvious. Under U.S. law, that &#8220;anything&#8221; is broad: earlier patents, published applications, journal articles, conference papers, manuals, product brochures, websites, and even public demonstrations all count as prior art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The legal hooks are sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/35\/102\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">102<\/a> covers novelty: if a single reference shows every element of a claim, the claim is anticipated. Section 103 covers obviousness: if a combination of references would have made the invention obvious to a skilled person, the claim falls. A thorough prior art search gathers ammunition for both arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It helps to distinguish this from its cousins. A patentability search happens before you file, to gauge your odds. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/freedom-to-operate-patent-search-guide-2\/\">freedom-to-operate search<\/a> checks whether your product infringes live patents. An invalidation-focused prior art search is the defensive version: you already face a specific patent, and you are hunting for the one reference that proves it should not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"why-it-matters\">Why a Prior Art Search Matters in Litigation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"800\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-analysis.jpg\" alt=\"prior art search analysis comparing earlier publications to patent claims\" class=\"wp-image-1119\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-analysis.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-analysis-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-analysis-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-analysis-768x512.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>A granted U.S. patent arrives with a presumption of validity. To overturn it, a challenger must show invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, a demanding standard. That is exactly why the quality of your prior art search decides so much. Weak art invites a quick dismissal; strong art shifts the entire negotiating posture of a case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The leverage is practical. A patent owner demanding a large settlement behaves very differently once you hand them a reference that anticipates their best claim. Many disputes settle on favorable terms the moment a credible prior art search surfaces a killer reference, because the patentee now faces real risk to the asset itself, not just this one lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is also the formal path. A challenger can take strong prior art to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through an inter partes review, an administrative proceeding that is faster and cheaper than district court. Our explainer on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-invalidity-search-litigation-2\/\">why a patent invalidity search matters in litigation<\/a> digs into how that route works. Either way, the foundation is the same: a rigorous prior art search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-to\">How to Conduct a Prior Art Search, Step by Step<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-engineer.jpg\" alt=\"engineer running a prior art search across patent and technical databases\" class=\"wp-image-1118\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-engineer.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-engineer-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-engineer-1024x684.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-engineer-768x513.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>A good prior art search follows a repeatable method. Skip steps and you leave gaps a patent owner will exploit. Here are the six steps that structure an effective invalidation search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Read the claims and pin the priority date.<\/strong> Everything turns on the filing or priority date. Art must predate it. Parse each claim into its individual elements so you know exactly what you must find.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Build a search strategy.<\/strong> Translate claim elements into keywords, synonyms, and the relevant patent classification codes (CPC and IPC). A keyword-only prior art search misses too much; classification catches what wording hides.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Search the obvious databases first.<\/strong> Run the patent literature through tools like the USPTO, Espacenet, and <a href=\"https:\/\/patentscope.wipo.int\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">WIPO Patentscope<\/a>, then move to Google Patents for fast cross-referencing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Chase the non-patent literature.<\/strong> Journals, standards documents, theses, manuals, and old product pages often hold the strongest references precisely because examiners rarely find them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Analyze and map every hit.<\/strong> Compare each candidate reference element by element against the claims, building a claim chart that shows anticipation or a clean obviousness combination.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Document the trail.<\/strong> Record databases searched, queries used, and dates retrieved, so the prior art search itself can withstand challenge later.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>The discipline matters as much as the diligence. A prior art search that finds a great reference but cannot prove it was publicly available before the priority date is worth very little. Provenance, dates, and accessibility are part of the work, not an afterthought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sources\">Where Prior Art Hides: Sources Worth Searching<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The best invalidating reference is usually the one the original examiner never saw. Examiners work under time pressure and lean heavily on patent databases, which means non-patent literature is where a determined prior art search earns its keep.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent sources still come first. National and regional collections from the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/patents\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">USPTO<\/a>, the European Patent Office, Japan, China, and Korea, all reachable through aggregators, form the backbone of any search. Foreign-language patents matter too; an idea may have been published in Japanese or German years before it surfaced in English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Beyond patents lies a rich seam. Academic journals and IEEE conference proceedings, technical standards, product datasheets, user manuals, archived web pages, doctoral theses, and trade publications have all sunk patents. A prior art search that ignores this layer is only half a search. For technologies tied to a fast-moving field, even old forum posts and release notes can establish that a feature existed before the patent claimed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ptab\">PTAB, Inter Partes Review, and the Estoppel Trap<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1200\" height=\"797\" src=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-services.jpg\" alt=\"prior art search supporting an inter partes review petition at the PTAB\" class=\"wp-image-1097\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-services.jpg 1200w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-services-300x199.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-services-1024x680.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/patent-invalidity-search-services-768x510.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Most invalidation efforts that rely on patents or printed publications head to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through inter partes review. The PTAB applies a lower burden than district court and is staffed by technically trained judges, which makes a well-supported prior art search especially potent there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But IPR carries a sharp catch: estoppel. Once the board issues a final written decision, the petitioner is barred from later raising, in court, any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. In plain terms, a half-hearted prior art search can cost you arguments you never even made. That is why pre-petition searching must be exhaustive, not convenient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This raises the stakes on completeness. The whole point of an invalidation prior art search is to find the strongest references before you commit to a forum, because the rules will not give you a second bite at the same apple. Strategy and search quality are inseparable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mistakes\">Common Mistakes That Weaken a Prior Art Search<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Even experienced teams trip over the same hazards. The first is relying on keywords alone. Inventors and examiners describe the same concept with wildly different words, so a prior art search that never uses classification codes will miss obvious references.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The second is stopping at patents. The richest invalidating art often lives outside patent databases, and skipping non-patent literature leaves the best references undiscovered. The third is ignoring foreign-language sources, which can predate everything in English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A fourth mistake is sloppy date evidence. Finding a reference is only half the job; proving it was publicly accessible before the priority date is the other half, and weak provenance gets references thrown out. Finally, many searches end too early. Budget pressure tempts teams to stop once they find one decent reference, but the best invalidation strategy stacks multiple references so a single distinction cannot save the patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"examples\">Real-World Examples<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The pattern shows up repeatedly in high-profile disputes. In the long-running smartphone wars, defendants routinely funded deep prior art searches and used inter partes review to knock out asserted claims, reshaping multi-billion-dollar fights. Many broad software and e-commerce patents that once looked threatening collapsed once a determined search surfaced older systems doing the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consider a common scenario. A patent assertion entity sends demand letters across an industry, claiming a routine feature. One defendant invests in a rigorous prior art search and finds a decade-old product manual describing the exact feature. That single reference, properly dated and charted, does not just defend one company; it can deflate the entire campaign, because the patent now looks vulnerable to anyone who sees the art. That is the quiet power of a strong prior art search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-we-help\">How PerspireIP Can Help<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>At PerspireIP, the invalidation prior art search is one of our core services, and we approach it like the high-stakes work it is. Our analysts combine patent classification expertise with deep non-patent literature research across journals, standards, manuals, and foreign-language sources, so the references an examiner missed do not stay missed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We do not just hand over a pile of references. We deliver claim charts that map each reference to the challenged claims, flag the strongest anticipation and obviousness combinations, and document provenance so the art holds up at the PTAB or in court. If you also need to understand the competitive field, our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-landscape-analysis-business-strategy\/\">patent landscape analysis<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/patent-invalidity-search-services\/\">patent invalidity search services<\/a> work hand in hand with the search. The result is evidence you can actually litigate on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"killer-reference\">What Makes a Reference a &#8220;Killer&#8221; Reference?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Not all references carry the same weight. The gold standard is a single document that discloses every element of a claim, arranged as the claim arranges them. That is anticipation under section 102, and it is the cleanest path to invalidation because it does not require combining anything or arguing about motivation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When no single reference does the whole job, the next best thing is a tight obviousness combination: two or three references that together cover the claim, paired with a clear reason a skilled engineer would have combined them. Courts and the board are wary of hindsight, so the strongest obviousness case explains the motivation to combine using the references themselves, not the patent you are attacking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Provenance separates a good reference from a usable one. A killer reference has an unambiguous public date that predates the priority date, a verifiable source, and ideally a record of distribution or accessibility. A brilliant disclosure with a fuzzy date is a liability, because the patent owner will attack the date before they ever address the substance. The aim of a litigation-grade search is not just to find disclosures but to find provable ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally, the best references are hard to design around. A claim element described in passing might be distinguished away; one described in detail, with the same purpose and structure, is far harder for a patentee to escape. Quality, in other words, is about depth and dates, not just topical overlap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"timing\">Timing: When to Search and Who Should Do It<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The instinct is to start searching the moment a demand letter lands, and that urgency is healthy. But timing shapes strategy. If you are weighing an inter partes review, the searching must finish before you file the petition, because estoppel will lock in whatever you raised or could have raised. There is no leisurely second pass after the board rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Companies that operate in patent-heavy industries increasingly search proactively, before any dispute exists. Building a reference library around the patents most likely to be asserted against them turns a frantic defense into a prepared one. When the letter arrives, the art is already on the shelf. Pairing that posture with a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/freedom-to-operate-patent-search-guide-2\/\">freedom-to-operate review<\/a> before launch is a sensible way to see threats coming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Who performs the work matters too. Strong searching blends technical fluency in the relevant field with knowledge of how claims are construed and how the board weighs evidence. An engineer alone may miss the legal nuance; a lawyer alone may miss the technical disclosure buried in a datasheet. The best results come from teams that read both the claims and the science with equal care, which is precisely the gap professional search firms exist to fill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bottom-line\">The Bottom Line on Search Quality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>It is tempting to treat invalidation as a numbers game, where more references mean a stronger case. In reality, depth beats breadth. Ten loosely related documents rarely outperform two precise ones that map cleanly onto the claims and carry airtight dates. The craft lies in finding those few decisive references and proving exactly why they matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That craft also explains why so much hinges on preparation. The challenger who has parsed the claims, mapped the field, and assembled provable references walks into a negotiation or a hearing with the initiative. The one who improvised is forever reacting. Good searching is, at bottom, about controlling the terms of the fight before it starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>None of this is glamorous work. It is patient, methodical, and detail-obsessed, the kind of effort that never shows up in a headline yet quietly decides who wins. For any business that depends on the freedom to build and sell its products, that quiet diligence is worth far more than it costs, and it is the difference between fearing a patent and dismantling it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A patent is only as strong as the art that was never found before it issued. A rigorous prior art search is how a defendant flips a threatening patent into a liability for its owner, whether the goal is a favorable settlement, a clean win at the PTAB, or simply peace of mind before launching a product. The work rewards discipline: parse the claims, search broadly, chase the non-patent literature, and document everything. If you are facing an aggressive patent or want to pressure-test one before it is used against you, talk to PerspireIP about a prior art search built to win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"faq\">Frequently Asked Questions About Prior Art Searches<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-counts-as-prior-art-in-a-prior-art-search\">What counts as prior art in a prior art search?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Almost any public disclosure before the patent&#8217;s priority date: earlier patents, published applications, journal articles, manuals, product brochures, websites, and even public demonstrations can all qualify as prior art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-is-an-invalidation-search-different-from-a-patentability-search\">How is an invalidation search different from a patentability search?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A patentability search runs before filing to gauge your chances. An invalidation prior art search targets a specific granted patent, hunting for references that prove it should never have been issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"why-search-non-patent-literature\">Why search non-patent literature?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Examiners rely heavily on patent databases, so the strongest invalidating references often hide in journals, standards, manuals, and theses that a patent-only search would never surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-is-ipr-estoppel\">What is IPR estoppel?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>After a PTAB final decision, a petitioner cannot later raise in court any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the inter partes review, which makes a complete prior art search essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"can-i-run-a-prior-art-search-myself\">Can I run a prior art search myself?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>You can start with free tools, but litigation-grade searches require classification expertise, non-patent and foreign-language sources, and defensible documentation, which is where professional help pays off.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A strong prior art search is the foundation of any patent invalidation. Learn the six steps to find references that hold up at the PTAB.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1120,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[97,40,8,14,139,9,43],"class_list":["post-1147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-patent","tag-inter-partes-review","tag-patent-invalidation","tag-patent-invalidity-search","tag-patent-litigation","tag-prior-art","tag-prior-art-search","tag-ptab"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1147"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1147\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1155,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1147\/revisions\/1155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.perspireip.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}