|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
If a patent examiner had more skill that someone of ordinary skill in the art,
the examiner would be in the art and not be an examiner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 22 2013 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
And, I don't recall the adjective "ordinary skill" being in the
original obviousness definition, either.
That is, "ordinary skill in the art" is itself pretty vague. Let's
assume, for a moment, that there is such a thing as a "Software
Intelligence Quotient", a linear scale like IQ that measures computer
programming ability and/or skill. [IQ itslef has been shown to have all kinds of
problems that I suspect transfer directly to this measure] What would be
ordinary skill?? A 20 or 30 year experienced programmer at the 90th percentile?
A god, like Brian Kernighan or Dennis Ritchie or even Bjarne Stroustrup?
And, "good" (as in truly able) programmers don't come cheap, any more
than really good lawyers do....
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|