|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
1) It doesn't define what a process is in the definition sense. You can use a
dictionary for that.
Instead, it broadens the definition (In case it is necessary) to encompass the
other listed things. Sort of like overloading an operator. It makes the rest
of the statute easier to read and to write.
2) The part you seem to be troubled by simply makes it clear that a new use for
a known process is patentable.
For example, in a world where using a prism to create a rainbow is known,
but wherein emission lines and absorption lines are not known, a new use of the
old method of creating rainbows applied to the light from a star or light from a
heated chemical sample to determine the chemical make up of the star or chemical
sample is a patentable "process". It is a new use of a known process.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|