|
|
|
| Authored by: IANALitj on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
I am both a retired computer programmer and a retired lawyer.
I am not familiar with the discipline of semiotics.
It is my understanding that the Patent Office has asked for suggested topics for
discussion in the future. What I see here is three levels of presentation.
At the top level are four suggested topics, each a question in a single
sentence.
I submit that this is what was requested.
At the second level are "brief thoughts in explanation" of each topic.
These are considerably more extensive than the single sentences, but --
considering that the Patent Office is the addressee -- it is not unreasonable to
call them brief.
I submit that these go beyond what was requested, but may be useful in causing
our topics to be chosen by the Patent Office.
At the third level are the detailed materials in the supplement.
I concur with PJ that "If we overwhelm them with a lot of what they didn't
ask for, I worry that it would be counterproductive."
The detailed exposition in the supplement may be useful if the Patent Office
decides that our proposed topics should be discussed. However, we should be
careful not to give those making that choice so much material that they decide
that they are better off choosing topics that do not require so much preparatory
study.
I would suggest submitting references to this material, but not submitting this
mass of material itself, at least in anything like its present form. There is
no virtue being so virtuous as to be counterproductive. Let's try to get our
nominated topics adopted.
I have observed in the corrections thread that the supplement lacks a Table of
Contents. It also seems to lack any reference to the footnote that explains the
relationship between the supplement and proposed topics. I am sure that there
are better obfuscatory techniques available, but these will do for a start.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
