|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 02:00 AM EDT |
Thanks.
There are a couple points of patent law that may explain some sentences that
seem unclear to you.
In US patent law what is recited in the claim is always called "the
invention", even if it is not new or obvious. The idea is there is no legal
test of whether or not there is an invention. Therefore, in this sense, there is
always an "invention" even when nothing is actually invented. So when
we say "make the invention" it legally means "make whatever is
recited in the claim".
The second point is that the words of the claim control. When a process is
claimed, we must always refer to the claim to know what the process is. If there
is a limitation in the claim on whatever the bits or the printed matter must
mean, this is legally part of the process, technical reality notwithstanding. If
we print a different book it is a different process because from a claim
perspective the limitation is different. A different book is being named. This
is critical because this is how the courts have determined that each computation
is a different process based on the meaning of the data. We all know that in the
computer this is all arithmetic and boolean operations. But the courts don't
look at the computer. They look at the claim. For them bits that count apples
are different from bits that count oranges because the claims use different
words to describe them. Part of the printed press analogy is to show how stupid
this view is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
