|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 12:13 PM EST |
Based on your description I have come to the conclusion that
it is the lawyers who are causing all the patent problems.
Ban the lawyers from being involved with patent applications
and we will get patent applications that make sense and
patents that those skilled in the art can understand.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 01:01 PM EST |
That is an excellent description of the way things are
supposed to work.
There are a few flaws in practice. The examiner may fail to
find relevant prior art. A resourceful petitioner may avoid
the putative ban on "new matter" thanks to a few vague
generalities in the description.
The basic problem is that the petitioner has every incentive
to amend until the examiner relents, and the examiner has no
incentive to do a proper job. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 02:08 PM EST |
If they let the inventor explain the invention in his own words,
they would see the patent is for something else....
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 03:12 PM EST |
Hmmm....if a patent is supposed to be such that a person
practiced in the art can duplicate the patented item, then
shouldn't the patent be written in the language of the art
(with its incumbent definitions), instead of in legalese?
(Unless it's a patent on something in the realm of the art of
legalese, of course.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
