You're not dealing with babies who think that you've disappeared because you've
covered your face.
How can one describe someone that argues one thing whilst
knowing the truth is different
because all an infringer would have
to do is change one bolt
This is a blatant lie if you know of
the DoE.
If you're a patent lawyer and you don't know of the DoE then you
would be inadequate.
If you're not a patent lawyer and you don't know of the
DoE yet you argue about something about which you do not know then you are
woefully ignorant.
If you are a patent lawyer and you insist on such
arguments are being valid then you are trying to swindle us. A charlatan is
synonymous with swindler.
So, which is it?
The DoE, as far as I'm
aware, applies to each claim and not to the whole patent and consists of 3
parts,
does substantially the same,
in substantially the same
way,
to get substantially the same result.
If claims are too broad
then the DoE will suck all the innovation out of the field.
If
the issue is "overly broad" claiming and policy is to narrow claims, the DoE
would be eroded out of existence.
Utter nonsense. I think you're
trying to do it again - swindle that is. The court and lawyers apply the DoE,
not the USPTO when granting a claim. Perhaps you can elucidate on the logic of
how the DoE would be eroded if claims are narrow.
Just how broad can a claim
be? Use a computer to calculate something and output the results in a human
interpretable form would cover all uses of a computer. Using the DoE I've just
claimed the entire human race and all its thoughts (yeah, I was using my
definition of a computer because I didn't create a glossary). The DoE expands
what is narrow. It isn't there to expand something that is already too
big.
The horrific thing is the use of a computer to run calculations and
output the results with no subsequent actions. The DoE is a rather obvious
addition to patent law as long as it isn't abused.
I'm not the right person
for schooling you on patent law, I know that, but I do recognise someone who is
being disingenuous and this is not your first time. There's something about
lawyers that gives them the chutzpah to think that they are the best at logic.
The sad thing is that mathematicians, computer scientists and even lowly part
time programmers and accountants also know things about logic.
And you think
I'm the one who is childish? Sheesh.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|