|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
1. The description is NOT part of the claims. Don't even
bother reading the description.
2. Your main point is exactly right: claim one is nothing
more than "search remotely and also search locally". That's
hardly deserving of the term "process" or "method". It's
completely abstract (does not result in any new "machine or
transformation"), but more to the point, it's completely
obvious and non-novel.
3. "Corollary" and "converse" are not the same thing. Works
out about right in this case since there's no other section
applicable to process claims, though.
4. I agree with you that the claims are not just vague,
they're linguistically bizarre. The method includes
"performing a search" and "receiving a notification of a
result". Who is receiving the notification? The search
program? The end user? If the latter, this means anybody
can sell software that practices the rest of the claim, and
only the end users are infringing? (I'm not familiar with
contributory infringement in patent law, but I guess that
failure to plead it correctly would be a useful defense.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
"What is the 'orderly procedure or process' in the claims? The claims, of
themselves, are meaningless. Computerising a process or method means, in plain
English, doing something by programming a computer to execute the process steps
or the orderly procedure of the method. What does the phrase 'receiving at least
a partial search query' mean to a person using a computer program? The only way
to see any sense in the process or method claims is to read the detailed
description:"
They are not meaningless. I understood them on the first read.
Receiving at least a partial search query means just that.
I can't even imaging why you find that difficult to understand so I will just
give you and example
If the search query is Patents & Encourage & innovation, then receiving
at least a partial search query means receiving, for example,
Patent & innovation, or Patents & Enourage or Encourage & innovation
or event Pat.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
"What does 'In general, the present invention provides a universal
interface' mean? How does the method or process rely on a universal interface
and how does the universal interface differ from a specific interface? What, in
this part of the claim, makes the method or process a novel and useful one as
opposed to the same method or process using a specific interface? In what way is
the interface 'universal'? "
Universal isn't in the claim language. Why are you going off on it? The claims
define the claimed invention, not the specification. You whine that
specifications are difficult to understand. Here someone has described the
invention in less legalistic terms and your off on a rant. That's why
specifications are written in difficult to understand legalese to avoid as much
as possible this sort of nit picking.
The claimed invention isn't in the universality of the interface, it is in the
one stop shopping of searching both the local computer and network connected
devices with one search request. Maybe that was new and not obvious at the
time, may be it wasn't. I know I didn't see that as available in a
generic-search engine until the mid '00s and I said ooo neat when I got the
feature.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
"The patent is the equivalent of a system design outline for a networked
computer system. The programmer would be incapable of programming the computer
system because what the computer is supposed to achieve is impossibly vaguely
defined.
"
If its too broad, because the author was not aware of things the language could
be misinterpreted to read on, then that will come up during prosecution and the
claims will be amended to read away from the prior art. It is not a requirement
that applicants be aware of every square millimeter of the prior art before
filing an application. That would be unworkable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
