decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Here is the metric I am missing: | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Here is the metric I am missing:
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 | # ]

Here is the metric I am missing:
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )