decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You are correct | 167 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Don't be silly, all IT patents are dogs. ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 11:02 AM EDT
.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Prior Art, Anyone? - The Parallel Iron/IPNav Patents That Rackspace Is Going After ~pj
Authored by: alisonken1 on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Think of the description as an executive summary. In legal
circles, the only thing that matters is the specific claim(s)
that the patent covers, not the "executive summary"
(otherwise known as market speak).

---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered John Doe^W^WLinux user #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are correct
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 08 2013 @ 02:56 PM EDT
In the sense you describe, the specification does matter. The claimed subject
matter must support the claims. That is, the specification must explain how to
make and use the invention so that one of ordinary skill could make and use the
claimed invention without undue experimentation.

However, the specification can talk about a range of four legged creatures to
provide background and context, while the claims are directed specifically to
cats.

So, if you want to show that a patent is not valid over the prior art, you need
to look at the claims. If they claim cats, its best to find prior art that
describes cats. Dog art might be useful if you have a strong argument that cats
are obvious in view of dogs...but cats are different enough from dogs that such
an argument would probably not convince a jury.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )