decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Secret Sauce in a patent | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Secret Sauce in a patent
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )