Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

on a purely technical level, probably true | 393 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

on a purely technical level, probably true

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 12:32 AM EDT

Examiner (based on commonly understood meaning of the patent): "it's invalid"

Apple: "no it doesn't mean that, it means something different"

Examiner: "oh well it might be valid then".

Then the examiner is incorrect in asserting that it might be valid, as the USPTO's requirements are that the specification is in "such full, clear, concise, and exact terms" [emphasis added] and if they've read it one way, but Apple says it should be read in another way, then it is clearly NOT in "exact terms" and so IS [automatically] invalid.

If Apple have not changed the wording of claim 19 (as appears to have been claimed by a comment here) to get around Lira (narrow its scope) then clearly, again, claim 19 is not in exact terms (otherwise there would be no possibility of confusion over scope), and so does not conform to the USPTO's specification requirements and so is invalid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

on a purely technical level, probably true - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:12 AM EDT
- on a purely technical level, probably true - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT
That seems a very compelling argument to me. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 03:02 AM EDT
on a purely technical level, probably true - Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 03:19 AM EDT
surely that means that claim construction -> invalidity - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:48 AM EDT

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 )