|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Where this is going - unless you specify exactly which
transformations you have used, you have not implemented the
method. If you haven't implemented it, you haven't invented
it. Anyone can write down a list of things - implementation
is what matters (or should matter) for patents. IMHO, for a
patent to be valid, it has to have been realized. And the
patent is on what was realized. If you built it able to use
3 different transformations, you can get a patent on those
3. Only those 3. If you want a 4th, you need to add it -
and then prove that that addition is creative enough to be
worthy of a patent, given your existing patent.
And I'm consistent - I want hardware patents to be detailed
enough to build, and the inventor to be able to produce on
demand a working copy.
jjs (not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|