|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
At least, none in this complete thread.
You have clarified a bit
now:
You've recognized I haven't said the words have absolutely no
meaning!
You've recognized how using "you" in a comment on a specific
point of the total subject can easily be misleading and easily
misinterpreted.
Of course, I'm assuming your recognition based on your
explanations.
Perhaps you can actually touch on the facts you haven't
touched on:
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.
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.
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.
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.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
