|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 03:57 AM EDT |
Ans: Apply to the USPTO for the patent award.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Paragraph 169 is discussing a particular way to structure claims called
"means-
plus-function" (MPF), which is explicitly allowed by 35 USC 112, paragraph
6
(see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code#Section_112).
MPF is generally a disfavored way to structure claims because the claims are
severely limited by the structure disclosed in the rest of the specification.
Additionally, if there is no structure disclosed in the specification, then the
claims are indefinite under 35 USC 112, paragraph 2. Indefinite claims are
invalid. This is essentially what HTC's expert is arguing at paragraph 169.
You have to remember though, this is HTC's expert. Of course he is going to
argue that Apple's claims are invalid. Just because the expert argues this, it
is
not necessarily the correct interpretation.
IMHO, looking at the claims, HTC is incorrect. I do not believe that claim 19
is a
MPF claim, in which case the argument at paragraph 169 of the expert report is
moot. However, we will have to see what the ALJ decides.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
