|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
Not really. Words have ordinary meaning. You can look them up in a dictionary.
The embodiment that might be available is only ONE embodiment. The claim might
be to a mechanically driven framastat. In the case of the prototype or what
ever, the mechanical drive might be a hand crank for demonstration purposes, but
in an industrial application the mechanical drive might be a windmill or Diesel
engine.
In that case the display piece is misleading with regard to the meaning of
mechanically driven.
The court is better off looking in the dictionary, like the real world when we
don't know what a word means.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
And it's so simple:
If the original inventor can not understand the
patent disclosure sufficiently to duplicate the invention from it - what hope
has anyone else to duplicate the invention?
Automatic fail because it fails
one of the requirements necessary to get the patent grant.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|