|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
I don't think that what it means is particularly important with regard to the
dred pirate "Software Patent."
The whole sentence is : Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be
considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art.
IMHO, I don't think "software" is an unpredictable and undeveloped
art. Therefore, lack of a working example is not an especially important factor
to be considered.
One can describe a computer implementable method in the broad strokes of a
software architect and be understood to have invented the method or to be in
possession of the invention at the time a related patent application is filed
even though the nitty gritty of the machine code, or even the nitty gritty of
every class and function and header have not been specified.
But because only an
enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual
embodiments. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|