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 | # ]
|