|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
To the perspective of whether or not the Foreman should be adjudged based on
his choice of words:
We neither agree nor disagree. You've voiced your
opinion he shouldn't, I've said "I dunno".
To the perspective on the value
of the words in the patent vs the value of the images:
We disagree to some
extent, agree to some extent. I feel a lot of the words are superfluous and the
images carry a lot more information. You've spoken to the value in the images,
opinined that the words are equally valuable but have otherwise not spoken to
the potential superfluousness of any of the wording or the value of any wording
with the exception of the claim.
That wasn't so hard to reach an
understanding once the points were actually touched upon.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
Just to be clear, the Apple design patent D'677 indicates
that their design is
valid for novelty items and toys as
well. It is a well known fact that chalk
board slates have
existed with rounded rectangles before.
Also, you
seem to be hung up only on the fact that there are
words and one claim in the
Design patent. No one here is
disputing that fact. The only point of
disagreement here is,
a design patent protects the diagrams, not what is
claimed
in the statements. Statements just provide the context.
Design patents
is only and only about what is shown in the
diagram that can be protected. A
design patent can not write
something in text and claim protection for it. And
anyways,
the words in the D'677 patent are literally what RSA and I
have
quoted multiple times. Can you care to quote a "non-
trivial" sentence from the
D'677 patent that can support
your argument that words in a design patent make
all the
difference? Again, when I say "non-trivial" the intent is
to find
sentences of the quality of a Utility patent where
invention is described in
the claims and not just sentences
saying, "we claim ornamental design of an
electronic device"
and "Fig 1 is front view".
When the foreman wants
to compare the alleged products of
Samsung with the design patent, he should
have been looking
at images and not statements. If the foreman was confused
whether he was looking at a toy, a paper weight or an
electronic device, then
he was the wrong person for the job
of a jury foreman.
-PR[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
