|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
So, if the examiner is ignorant or lazy or arrogant or otherwise ignores
what a claim says, then your patent is not valid? Is that how the system
should work?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 03:02 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
35 USC § 112 -
Specification -
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.—
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or
acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.
The claim isn't found entirely within the
claim language itself relying on the written description as well as prior art
and prosecution history ("equivalents thereof") to limit the claim's
scope.
Has the claim changed without changing the actual claim language?
Apple's concession is now entered into the patent's prosecution history, a
principle source of intrinsic evidence for claims construction.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:48 AM EDT |
Claim construction seems to be intended to provide or clarify
meaning (or just make up nonsense) for an issued patent.
That has to be an admission that "full, clear, concise, and
exact terms" have not been used in the patent, and it should
never have been issued.
Claim construction appears to be a way to rewrite the patent
after the fact in a way that would probably not be accepted in
any other situation.
NAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
