|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
in the patent. But, the point is well taken, imo. The patent is so vague as to
include almost anything that is even close. I believe his aha moment shows he
went into day 2 defending those patents as they were his own AND valid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
As soon as he said that my heart sank.
"Oh no, we've been there, done that..."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sela on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
I find what he says just before the part you quoted even more
puzzling:
"We didn't look at any singular aspect that closely for any
patent to be valid, whether it be utility or whether it be design. All of the
claims and all of the limitations have to be taken in an entirety ..."
So basically, he's saying they glossed over the details and haven't
looked at any of the claim "that closely". I'm not sure what he means by "taken
in an entirety", but it seems like he's saying they mainly glossed over the
details of the claims and patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
