I clicked on the claims link of the patent.
A PDF showed up and
nothing more on the page. Click on the Description link, and it takes you to
the exact same PDF. Click on the Abstract or Drawings link, and they all take
you to the exact same 5 page PDF.
The Claim(s) listed on the PDF are
nothing more then:
We claim the ornamental design for an electronic
device, substantially as shown and described.
What am I missing?
Please quote the actual words you believe I'm missing from having gone through
that entire 5-page PDF.
My humble opinion on the wording of the Claim(s)
(yes, I question whether you can take a single claim and make it a
multiple):
To claim the ornamental design
Hmm... it's called a "Design
patent". Perhaps the word Ornamenal means something, it's defined (not legally,
general dictionary) as:
Serving or intended as an ornament; decorative: "an
ornamental fountain".
Ok - so that makes it clear it's a non-functioning
design patent. That raises an interesting question:
Do functioning design
patents exist? Or are they just refered to as Patents under Patent
Law?
So... that particular part of the claim, in my humble
opinion:
Superfluous!
By all means, I'm willing to be corrected. But
you'll need to identify where I'm wrong with the above definitions.
Specifically what is the Legal definition of "oranamental"? Is there actually a
Legal seperation between a general patent and a "functional design
patent"?
Let's be civilized in our discussion. I've clearly outlined how
I view the terms relative to what I - non-legal as I am - know. I'm easily
willing to be corrected. But that means you get to explain why you think my
position on said terms is wrong - not just that it's wrong.
How about
"substantially as shown and described".... well, that could have meaning.
Except I've already shown that the "description" could simple be a label on the
image identifying what face one is seeing. So it seems to me, that particular
wording is:
Superfluous!
How about "for an electronic device" - that
does have meaning, it limits the "ornamental design patent" to a specific field
of objects. My humble opinion on that point:
Yes, limiting the field to a
particular type of device - rather then targeting all devices - does hold an
amount of meaning.
But my main point still stands and you have offered no
proof to the contrary:
Most of the words in the patent are
superfluous, the images provide the bulk of the meaningful
data!
Don't just say I'm wrong, explain why you think I'm wrong.
Explain how all the other words in the patent that aren't "for an electronic
device" have more meaningful information in them then the images
themselves.
Now to deal with the other specific points in your
post:
The last one is not needed to make it clear that they are not
claiming the design of a person. The person is shown with dotted lines. That
indicates that the person is not being claimed.
You appear
contradictory, the last claim includes:
the broken lines being shown
for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the design
And
then you state (my paraphrasing):
The person shown with dotted lines is what
indicates the person is not being claimed.
Perhaps you are saying I'm wrong
when I said the words about the broken lines for Fig 9 held some meaning.
Perhaps you are saying those words are superfluous too. Or perhaps they hold
some other meaning which you have no intention to share?
I figured they
had meaning because the other images included dotted lines. With no limitations
regarding the dotted lines on those images. Perhaps you are saying that means
the bezel is not patented after all? Because the bezel appears to be clearly
shown with dotted lines.
The foreman referred to "statements" in the
design patent and you are attacking him for it and saying there are no
statements.
Actually, if you re-read my post carefully, you will
see I am clearly not:
Whether or not the Foreman erred in the way
the other poster suggested - only the Foreman can truly say
I do
question his honesty:
if he's willing to be totally
honest
However, I made that crystal clear it's for other reasons
relating directly to the Jury Instructions. Sorry - you either made the mistake
of assuming I was the other poster you were dealing with or you have
deliberately decided to make a claim "I'm doing X" when I'm clearly
not.
If the statement were: We claim the ornamental design for a
child's drawing toy,then the etch-a-sketch would perhaps be disqualifying prior
art to the Apple
tablet patent.
Assuming - and the assumption could
easily be wrong - you are the same poster, you already made that point in
another comment. I've now explicitly spoken to the limitation
above.
However - you have not spoken to any of the rest of the words in
the patent. Perhaps that's your way of quietly accepting those words really are
empty of any value besides identifying what surface a person is looking at? Or
perhaps you'd like to actually discuss those words in context and why you feel
those words have more value then the images?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
