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
I did say I needed to review it | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I did say I needed to review it
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 01:49 PM EDT

Caveat 1: As I haven't actually reviewed any of that yet, my statement was a curious impression based on what was quoted in the extraordinarily limited sense that it was quoted. As a result, my initial impression is obviously subject to change and/or confirmation upon taking the time to more fully review the citations and then cross-reference that information with the various positions you have been presenting.

Caveat 2: This is not a question of your whole position in the thread as you presented it. As stated, I have not reviewed the material for consideration as a result I reserve my opinion on your position for a later time.

This is strictly a question with regards the one statement:

Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered
and how that statement is applied in the context of Patents.

The reverse of my initial impression is quite interesting when applied:

    Patent Examiner: You don't have a working example. I will grant the patent because you do not have a working example.
Yea.... that makes sense.... on second thought: no, that doesn't make any sense at all!

Since that doesn't make any sense, let's examine the reverse:

    Patent Examiner: You don't have a working example. You have not sufficiently disclosed the invention you claim and a working example would go a long way to that disclosure. Because you are lacking sufficient disclosure - either through a working example or through description - your patent is revoked.
That makes a lot more sense.

Given your response - you are correct that I'm not necessarily understanding the context of what you understand. But that doesn't - in and of itself - prove I'm wrong and you're right. Nor does it prove I'm right and you're wrong. There is even the possibility both understandings make sense - so we could both be right. There's also the fourth possibility we are both wrong.

I am willing to consider your perspective. As a result perhaps you can explain - since you disagree with my initial impression of the particular phrase - the various contexts in which the phrase does make sense. Or at least, explain the context you were viewing it since it is obviously different from what I presented.

Specifically what you need to explain is that "a lack of a working example is a factor to be considered" for what?

It certainly doesn't make sense it's a factor to be considered for granting the patent. At least, not from the perspective of the example I provided.

So if it's not a factor to be considered for refusing the grant - what is it a factor to be considered for?

Providing a "sample discussion" from the examiner, as I have above, would probably go a long way to showing how the context you were viewing that particular statement from makes sense.

Just a suggestion: If you want me to be more receptive to the concepts you are presenting:

    clarifying your position
works better then:
    saying I have it wrong without providing a reasonable explanation to what I'm missing

RAS

[ 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 )