|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
Therein lies another part of the problem. Reading this instruction required a
lot of head scratching to figure out the meaning. It reads as if it were written
by a lawyer and is not plain English. After all, the word
"interchangeability" is used 4 times without any definition of what
constitutes interchangeability.
There is a lot of talk about what a reasonable jury would or would do. What
about the question as to whether a reasonable jury would be able to correctly
understand the instructions? I always hold that if you write something that the
intended audience cannot understand or misinterprets, *you* have the problem,
not the reader. Yes, the jury can always ask questions, but one of the
characteristics of misinterpretation is that the reader thinks they got it
right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
Interesting observation. However, even if you apply this instruction to prior
art,
you can't reach the conclusion that the foreman reached, that is, if you apply
it
correctly. It's a classic logic problem. If A implies B, it doesn't mean that
not A
implies not B (though it's a commonly made mistake). Here A=interchangeable,
B=invalidate. Applying the instruction to prior art means if it's
interchangeable,
then it might be evidence enough to invalidate a patent. However, the foreman
applied it as if it's not interchangeable, then it must not invalidate a patent.
I
guess he's not very strong in logic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
