1. Novelty
If all four are nearly identical, then it can be claimed fairly reasonably that three of them could fail to be novel - one could still be novel, but the other three would fail due to the fourth.
2. Usefulness
To whom does the patent have to be useful? It may not be useful to you, in fact it could be annoying, but then again, in the field of market research, having a box pop up to ask you a liked something or not (that has just happened) is useful.
3. non-Obviousness
That could easily be tested by giving the description, but not the clear, detailed instructions on how to build the invention to one skilled in the art and see if they can come up with the invention [that works in exactly the same way as the claims]. If they can, it must be obvious; if they come up with another method of doing the invention not described clearly and exactly in the claims, then that will be extra evidence when any infringement is claimed in that the invention is the exact clearly described claims, not the described invention.

There is also the point of:
4. Disclosure of exact and clear terms to make the invention
If the claims are open to two or more interpretations, then they have not been written in "clear and exact terms so that one skilled in the art can make the exact patented invention" and the patent should be invalid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• You need to read them, then - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT
  • You need to read them, then - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT