|Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT|
|There's question as to whether the entire invention is useful (produces the|
claimed result). The lack of teaching a catalyst should invalidate claim 8.
The claim isn't practicable - it can't be reduced to practice by one skilled in
the art by using the patent description. How to use a catalyst isn't taught,
nor is the impact on the apparatus. Claim 8 should have no place in the patent
application without being practicable.
In real terms without specifics Claim 8 embraces all catalysts known or yet to
be discovered. The same type of innovation that granting the inventor of your
carbon fibre manufacture method is intended to promote - advances in the art.
The idea is to promote innovation, not give the inventor monopolies on any
possible chemicals or catalysts used. If there were no possibility of going
around a patent, innovation would stop dead until it expired or the inventor
would simply rent seek.
This is the situation you find yourself in with software patents and the
doctrine of equivalents. Abstract claims kill innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]