|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
Do a better search. There is plenty of prior art.
Your application is rejected under 35 USC 103 for being obvious in view of
http://www.google.com/patents/US5320566?dq=drowning+rescue+method+floatation&
;ei=-zNjUICOI-ry0gHMrIG4Aw
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Haven't you just created prior art by publishing that claim?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
France has a long standing legal requirement for people to assist a person in
danger.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- French law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 06:06 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
By Law they're provided with many, many floatation devices.
Now there
are a few devices that can be used to remove the floatation devices - but those
are almost never (if ever) actually used.
As a result, it is impossible
for a Patent Lawyer to drown no matter how many attempts they make or how
effective - in normal circumstances - such attempts would normally be.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
