|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
ROFL, that's funny:
Someone has to draft this
glossary.
You seem to be ignoring the reality that the work you're
complaining about is already being done.
The filing Lawyer is already in
discussion with the examiner in order to get the patent granted. During that
discussion words are being defined that have an impact to the patentability of
the particular invention.
So there's no extra work with the exception of
formalizing those definitions once agreed upon in order to get the grant. Isn't
that one of the tasks commonly assigned to the paralegal? To outline in an
official document what the Lawyer decided upon?
Someone has to
figure out which words have
to be in the glossary to comply with the silly
regulation.
Same problem: The core of the work is already being
done. The only extra work is to formalize it.
What will it be? ever
verb in the claims? every noun in the claims? Every adjective in the
claims?
Icing on the cake of humor. Same complaint a third time,
different language. Same solution:
Formalize the agreed upon definitions
between the Patent Lawyer and the examiner!
Of course... if the Lawyers are
finding themselves in too difficult a confusing mess because the language used
is "Legal" - perhaps they should consider authoring patents in the technical
language and accepting the technical definitions thereof.
Sadly: that's
not likely. Because Lawyers apparently like to argue just for the sake of
arguing.... even if their argument is totally silly:
"all doesn't mean
all"
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
