|
|
|
| Authored by: Tyro on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
Rephrase:
If the patent attorney is not skilled in the art being described by the patent
it should be specifically stated to be malpractice for him to rephrase the
description offered by the inventor.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
Thus this could describe many things perhaps without the
author realysing it.
Anyhow would I be able to get a patent for this:
one or more external disks
a disk controller in my computer capable of detecting faults
in a disk and giving me a fault message when he does; a way
to find the faulty disk
connectors and cables for the external disks; and
a way to connect all the external devices cables, interfaces
and my computer together
me capable of receiving and understanding fault messages
from the disk controller and removing from service the
faulty disk, by giving a software instruction, or by just
physically disconnecting it
wherein my computer is connected to the disks and I am able
to remember or take note of or put on an other data carrier
what disks are faulty or of something else.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles888 on Friday, April 12 2013 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
I wholeheartedly agree. But, it is
the normal way thus patent game is
played.
When this whole software patent mess
started in the late 90's, I used to
work for a company that stated to
systematically take some of the novel
work we did and patented it. Some of
the things patented are actually quite
novel for their time. But, the
problem is that, after the patent
lawyers had gone through it, I could
not even recognize what my own patents
do.
The principle bargain of the patent
system is trading protection for
teaching. The way these patent are
written, they can't possibly teach
anything to someone skilled in the
arts.
They should be forced to written by
the inventor himself in his own lingo.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
