|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
The USPTO say that the actual invention claimed must be specified in
detail by
the claims at the end of the patent.
Well, that's exactly
what's wrong: a "specification" is a phrasing of a problem. Blueprints are a
phrasing of a solution.
I can specify something like information travel
faster than light. Because it would be nice to have. But "nice to have" should
not be sufficient for registering a patent.
Patents should not be given for
wishlist items, but for solutions. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 09 2013 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
From 35 USC ยง 113 - Drawings:
The applicant shall furnish a
drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be
patented. When the nature of such subject matter admits of illustration by a
drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the Director may
require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from
the sending of a notice thereof.
Bolding mine for emphasis. It
seems clear in some cases a drawing is required.
And what is a
blueprint:
A design plan or other technical drawing.
So -
technically you are correct, US Patent Law does not use the word "blueprint"
anywhere. But in the face of the obvious spirit (and explicit use of the word
drawing) of US Patent Law - blueprints (at least in some instances) are
required.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
