|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
to the point as to whether or not something carved out of something natural by a
man is made by man or not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
To quote Patent Law:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
or...
There is nothing about "article of manufacture" in that
anywhere.
As for composition of matter:
Marble already exists in
nature
As a result:
Even if you did create a crystalline composition
that held 100% of the attributes of marble - it should be rejected in basic 101
analysis because it is not new.
As a result, the only agreement
we'll have is that we disagree.
As for pointing to a patent that the
USPTO granted as evidence of patentability:
The USPTO can not be trusted as
a reliable source because of all the invalid patents they have
granted!
I'll stick with my understanding of what the Supremes state along
with my reasonable understanding of what makes sense when the Supremes have not
spoken.
However, with that in mind, I'll clarify my position:
With
regards the "design of the statue" - I humbly state my opinion is that the
patent was improperly granted.
With regards the "composition of matter"
that the statue was made from: if it was new, and the patent was granted on the
particular composition of matter, then it seems appropriately
granted.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
Otherwise we will think even less of you than before ... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:17 PM EDT |
Design patents are not the same as
utility patents. Different standard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|