|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:27 AM EST |
it is a method, but it means nothing. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 12:53 PM EST |
As you point out, the general details of
the patent are irrelevant when
obvious to
person having
ordinary skill in the art (35 U.S.C. 103
Conditions for patentability;
non-obvious subject matter)
. So it should be obvious to that skilled
person
(or a person doing an internet search) that they need to
heat the steel
to right temperature. Such a person
has the necessary resources and
experience to do such
heating. Thus, no details are required in the patent
because
there is no way that those can be enforced unless those
specifically
pertain to the method. Similarly,
complete details of an algorithm
should not be included in a
patent such as the exact method to solve an
equation. It
would be too easy for someone to avoid a valid patent just
because they used a different method to solve the equation
but that method is
just a variant of the method used in the
patent.
However, right
temperature without any description
would make that claim invalid as being
indefinite (which is
your second aspect). That is similar to how Mark
summarized
Judge in Interval case : Judge Marsha
Pechman found the key
terms “unobtrusive manner” and “does not distract a user”
to
be indefinite. There is a problem here defining
exactness and
indefiniteness. If absolute then
there can not be no infringement if steel is
heated
0.000000001oC more than the maximum temperature disclosed in
the
patent. However if patents says before the steel glows
white then the patent is
perhaps indefinite. That is, there
is some subjectively to when the glow of
steel changes from
a light yellow glow (1079oC) to a white glow (1204oC) or
even dazzling white (1288oC).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|