|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
Doctrine of Equivalents would certainly be argued by someone. But if a 10 x 32
bolt is equivalent to a some other bolt, why do both bolts exist? Clearly,
there is an argument to be made that they are not equivalent and the infringer
would argue that claimed bolt is prone to failure and the work around bolt is
better and not equivalent.
If you are informed enough to understand the Doctrine of Equivalents, then you
should also understand that the proposal would work against it. The Doctrine of
Equivalents serves to broaden the interpretation of claims. If the issue is
"overly broad" claiming and policy is to narrow claims, the DoE would
be eroded out of existence.
Under the DoE, if a claim specifies a step uses FFT, the DoE tends to let the
FFT be interpreted as any method of determining a frequency domain
representation of a time domain signal. Which is just the sort of thing you all
find so horrific.
So, make up your mind.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|