|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
If the claim recites bicycle power, then regenerative braking is not covered.
If the claim recites mechanical and the example given in the spec was bicycle,
then all forms of mechanical were contemplated and are fairly covered. The use
of the word mechanical means that the inventor understood that other forms could
be used and that the invention lied is the use of an axillary generator.
If all forms of mechanical were too broad, then there is some other form of
"mechanical" in the prior art and the claim is not valid on that
basis. If there is not "mechanical" prior art, then the claim to all
"mechanical" is valid and you lost the race.
You can still patent regenerative and work out a license or cross license with
Mr. Mechanical if you like.
That's what I'm arguing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- you need a cross license for this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- No? - Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- you need a cross license for this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 10:27 PM EDT
- No. - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- No. NO. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 04:24 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
