|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
I did not see them as being controversial or important.
You are correct, the figures are described by statements. However, the
important statement is the claim. The claim was overlooked by the other poster
and by you.
"Clarifying those 3 points would be helpful. If you do not wish to clarify,
I will assume my points of discussion are dead on target and you were mistaken
by telling me I'm wrong."
I don't think I told you you were wrong. In any event, my main point was, you
were overlooking the claim.
"Perhaps you can actually touch on the facts you haven't touched on:"
To the extent I understand them, I will try:
"1) Your perspective of the weighting of value of the words in the
specific example patent as weighed against the value of the information in the
images."
I thought my perspective was clear from the first etch-a-sketch post. The
text of the claim provides important context information for the figures. If
the claim was to a toy, then the design drawings come close to reading on a
known device. If the claim is to an electronic device, then I believe the claim
is valid as I had never seen, and apparently no one has identified a design for
an electronic device that looks substantially like the thing in the figures.
I'm sorry I don't know how to put that on an importance scale. I can only say
that the claim and the figures are both important.
"2) If you have a different definition of the terms used compared with
normal English, identifying those definitions. For example, by providing the
legal definition of the phrase "Ornamental Design Patent" relative to
other types of patents if different from what I outlined as a layman."
I'm not aware of any significant difference between a legal definition and
an ordinary definition for any of the phrases you mentioned.
"3) Clarify what value the wording for Figure 9 has in which the
information can not be gleaned from the image - since you made it clear the
information I provided was not part of the value in the wording, it was part of
the value in the image."
I do not attribute any particular value to those words. However, together
with the image, I would argue they tend to indicate a size for the device, which
is information that is not otherwise apparent and because of Figure 9 the size
relative to a man is arguably part of the claimed design.
My point remains, the foreman should not be attacked for indicating that
design patents include statements. They do. They include claims. I believe,
he was referring to the claims when he said "statements".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
