|
Authored by: stegu on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
> And how can the inventor claim that the invention works if
> they are not able to produce a working prototype (in other
> words, if they are unable themselves to make it work)?
In one word: simulation. Simulation is used successfully to validate lots of
inventions today, both in mechanical and electrical engineering. Patents are
routinely awarded on "blueprints", often long before an actual product
is produced, and for good reason: a physical prototype often requires resources
far beyond what a small independent inventor can muster.
So, no, I think that requiring a physical prototype is unreasonable. I think
that the "reduction to practice" should require specificity and
concreteness, but not necessarily a physical prototype.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
I respectfully disagree. I believe a working prototype should be an
absolute requirement. According to 35 USC ยง 101, an invention must be useful to
be patent- eligible, and if the claimed invention does not even work, how can it
be useful?
What about "without manufacturing capabilities" was so
hard to understand? If I patent a new detonator system for an atomic bomb, I
should hope that the patent office will accept blueprints rather than ask for
the demonstration of a working prototype.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|