I agree with you, the core is embodied in the Law with regards "one practiced in the art". The problem seems to be that the "art" has moved from one of engineering to one of Legal.

It's just what I've observed over the long term and many discussions with various members, of one form or another, of the Legal Field.

For example, you could go to Mr. Gene Quinn's patent blog and ask him straight out if techies are qualified to understand the claims in a patent. I would be surprised if he said yes.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and it's a double-sided coin:

On the one side, for purposes of building the invention, we are qualified to understand them

On the other side, for the purposes of understanding the claims relative to a lawsuit, we are not qualified to understand them

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]