| Author |
Message |
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <31mqpiF3codruU1@individual.net>, Don A. Gilmore
<eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes
| Quote: | "Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tlKcFWb2iitBFwxs@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
In message <rJotd.21804$l%5.912570@news20.bellglobal.com>, Zed Rafi
zedrafi@poloniese.com> writes
I finally decided to call the female and male parts of the joint
"mortise" and "tenon" respectively.
But that's just what they aren't, in a conventionally formed puzzle. A
tenon slides out of a mortice, as well as into it. You can define black
as white if you want, but it tends to get in the way of your reader's
understanding.
In a mechanical engineering application, that's exactly what I would call
the members of such a joint. The terms "mortise" and "tenon" go beyond
cabinet making.
Both words stem from French, "mortaise" and "tenon" (related to the verb
"tenir": to hold or keep). Interestingly, the noun "mortaise" is a feminine
one and "tenon" is a masculine one.
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that |
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Maurer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
Jigsaw puzzles used to be such good, plain fun. But I doubt that any of
us could face the puzzle pieces now without thinking about... well, you
know....
Audio cables?
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In article <N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>, Paul Wolff at
bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk exposited:
| Quote: | In message <31mqpiF3codruU1@individual.net>, Don A. Gilmore
eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tlKcFWb2iitBFwxs@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
In message <rJotd.21804$l%5.912570@news20.bellglobal.com>, Zed Rafi
zedrafi@poloniese.com> writes
I finally decided to call the female and male parts of the joint
"mortise" and "tenon" respectively.
But that's just what they aren't, in a conventionally formed puzzle. A
tenon slides out of a mortice, as well as into it. You can define black
as white if you want, but it tends to get in the way of your reader's
understanding.
In a mechanical engineering application, that's exactly what I would call
the members of such a joint. The terms "mortise" and "tenon" go beyond
cabinet making.
Both words stem from French, "mortaise" and "tenon" (related to the verb
"tenir": to hold or keep). Interestingly, the noun "mortaise" is a feminine
one and "tenon" is a masculine one.
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
|
There are MT joints that only go in, never out, but another small
peice is required -- the wedge (or wedges)
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Paul Wolff wrote:
| Quote: | In message <rJotd.21804$l%5.912570@news20.bellglobal.com>, Zed Rafi
zedrafi@poloniese.com> writes
I finally decided to call the female and male parts of the joint
"mortise" and "tenon" respectively.
But that's just what they aren't, in a conventionally formed puzzle. A
tenon slides out of a mortice, as well as into it. You can define black
as white if you want, but it tends to get in the way of your reader's
understanding.
|
In a puzzle with interlocking pieces, the pieces can be disengaged
non-violently by movement in a dimension where they aren't interlocked.
The same is true of a dovetail.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jukka Aho
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Zed Rafi wrote:
| Quote: | Are there dedicated designations for the lobe-shaped protrusion
and the complementary cut-out of a jigsaw puzzle piece???
|
Wikipedia calls them "tabs" and "blanks":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle>
--
znark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don A. Gilmore
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:02 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
|
Apparently you've never dealt with patent applications. The semantics are
not nearly so rigid. A description and illustrations that allow someone
skilled in the art to understand how the device works are all that is
required. I have three patents and one pending and I largely wrote their
wording myself (with some guidance from my attorney).
Technical words in the English language are not handed down by divine edict,
nor must they stem back to the roots of human speech. In the ever-changing
world of engineering and science, one often must coin or borrow words if
there are no appropriate ones available to describe a new object or concept
(which is what you're *always* doing in a patent). In machine design this
often results in using part numbers instead. A machine can have thousands
of parts, so individually naming them becomes impractical. This by no means
makes the part naming less legal than some magically decreed name. The fact
that drawings are included in a patent ensures that there is no confusion
regarding terminology or configuration.
Don A. Gilmore
Mechanical Engineer
Kansas City |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:02 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
"Don A. Gilmore" <eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes:
| Quote: | "Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
Apparently you've never dealt with patent applications. The semantics are
not nearly so rigid. A description and illustrations that allow someone
skilled in the art to understand how the device works are all that is
required. I have three patents and one pending and I largely wrote their
wording myself (with some guidance from my attorney).
|
IANAL, but from my own experience[1] while you are, indeed, allowed to
"be your own lexicographer" and define words any way you want, most
lawyers I've worked with warn away from using terms, especially in the
claims, in ways that could be misleading without reading the
description. If there's no word that's pretty close, it seems to be
better to use a term that will essentially scream "you're going to
need to read the description to understand what I mean here".
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the mythical
"person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to understand it.
Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will be asked to rule
based on their understanding of what the claims in question mean, and
they won't be given the opportunity to read the description, nor would
they likely be qualified to understand it if they did. So it's best
if the claims can be understood correctly in isolation, with the
description merely providing the details of how to implement something
that practices them.
[1] Sixteen patents, twenty-four pending, and one being written.
[2] Again, this is not a legal opinion, nor legal advice
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | "Don A. Gilmore" <eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes:
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
Apparently you've never dealt with patent applications. The semantics are
not nearly so rigid. A description and illustrations that allow someone
skilled in the art to understand how the device works are all that is
required. I have three patents and one pending and I largely wrote their
wording myself (with some guidance from my attorney).
IANAL, but from my own experience[1] while you are, indeed, allowed to
"be your own lexicographer" and define words any way you want, most
lawyers I've worked with warn away from using terms, especially in the
claims, in ways that could be misleading without reading the
description. If there's no word that's pretty close, it seems to be
better to use a term that will essentially scream "you're going to
need to read the description to understand what I mean here".
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the mythical
"person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to understand it.
Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will be asked to rule
based on their understanding of what the claims in question mean,
|
Well, ever since _Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc._ (1996) it's been clear that claim construction is purely a question
of law to be decided by the judge. (Typically in patent infringement
cases there's a pretrial "Markman hearing" where the parties argue for
particular interpretations of the claims before the judge.) So the
jury's understanding is necessarily the judge's understanding.
The judge, in deciding what the claims mean, is supposed to do so based on
the "person of ordinary skill in the art" standard, but easier said than
done. The jury gets to decide the question of infringement.
| Quote: | and
they won't be given the opportunity to read the description,
|
Why not?
| Quote: | nor would
they likely be qualified to understand it if they did. So it's best
if the claims can be understood correctly in isolation, with the
description merely providing the details of how to implement something
that practices them.
|
Another thing is that in several recent decisions the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals has moved towards a sort of "plain language"
approach to interpreting claim language -- like, it's better to interpret
a claim term based on its dictionary meaning rather than some special
meaning used in the specification (even though this would seem to
contradict the "patentee can be his own lexicographer" idea [which
itself is based on older case law]).
With respect to patent prosecution, patent examiners are notorious for
never reading the patent specification, so that's another reason for not
using "own lexicographer" language.
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In article <31p3o9F392ubbU1@individual.net>, Don A. Gilmore at
eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com exposited:
| Quote: | "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:u0qwg39w.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
IANAL, but from my own experience[1] while you are, indeed, allowed to
"be your own lexicographer" and define words any way you want, most
lawyers I've worked with warn away from using terms, especially in the
claims, in ways that could be misleading without reading the
description. If there's no word that's pretty close, it seems to be
better to use a term that will essentially scream "you're going to
need to read the description to understand what I mean here".
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the mythical
"person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to understand it.
Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will be asked to rule
based on their understanding of what the claims in question mean, and
they won't be given the opportunity to read the description, nor would
they likely be qualified to understand it if they did. So it's best
if the claims can be understood correctly in isolation, with the
description merely providing the details of how to implement something
that practices them.
[1] Sixteen patents, twenty-four pending, and one being written.
[2] Again, this is not a legal opinion, nor legal advice
I wonder if the recent explosion of new patents has changed the way they are
(or should be) worded. Patents are numbered chronologically, i.e. the first
patent ever issued was patent #1. My first patent in 1998 was #5,756,913.
By the time I got my third patent, only five years later, the number had
shot up to 6,559,396, a jump of over 800,000 patents. That means that over
12% of all patents ever issued in the United States were issued during those
five years!
Since I haven't seen a huge inundation of fabulous, innovative products
lately (a phone with a camera...give me a break!), this seems to indicate
that there are huge amounts of frivolous patents being filed for by large,
hungry (and paranoid) companies like Microsoft and IBM that have the money
to do so "just in case". I'm much more impressed by a person who has only
one personally-owned patent for an actual, useful device than someone (like
many people I know) who has 46 of these corporate patents with their name on
them.
With so many active patents, there's bound to be a lot more litigation (they
can't *all* be frivolous). I suppose that this could be affecting the way
that such wording is interpreted and with what prudence we should choose our
nomenclature.
|
Depends on one's definition of "frivolous". Originally, a patent
was only awarded for a "thing", a made device which did something
original. Ideas were not patentable. When the rules were
changed to award patents for algorithms (which are nothing but
ideas), chemical compounds, and genetic material, the explosion
was on.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> writes:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the
mythical "person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to
understand it. Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will
be asked to rule based on their understanding of what the claims in
question mean, and they won't be given the opportunity to read the
description,
Why not?
|
Purely a supposition on my part, but I didn't think that jurors were
typically given entire documents to scrutinize, but rather were asked
to listen to testimony concerning what the documents said, which might
include read excerpts. I'd expect the excerpts to be carefully chosen
and framed such that the chooser's interpretation was the one
understood. If you let them read the documents on their own, you run
the risk of their being colored by a misinterpretation of something
(that you and perhaps even the other side consider) irrelevant.
The description in my latest granted patent (just over a week old) is
rather short, about five pages (not including figures and claims). I
don't think I'd expect a random juror to be able to read and
understand it, and I find that when reading patents, while I (who have
a fair bit of experience with them) can typically get a fair idea of
what they're about on a first reading, it often takes a fair bit of
time to be confident I understand just what they're claiming[1] and
where the corner cases are.
[1] Or, more often relevant for our concerns, disclosing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <31p16qF3ep6m5U1@individual.net>, Areff <me@privacy.net>
writes
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
"Don A. Gilmore" <eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes:
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
Apparently you've never dealt with patent applications. The semantics are
not nearly so rigid. A description and illustrations that allow someone
skilled in the art to understand how the device works are all that is
required. I have three patents and one pending and I largely wrote their
wording myself (with some guidance from my attorney).
IANAL, but from my own experience[1] while you are, indeed, allowed to
"be your own lexicographer" and define words any way you want, most
lawyers I've worked with warn away from using terms, especially in the
claims, in ways that could be misleading without reading the
description. If there's no word that's pretty close, it seems to be
better to use a term that will essentially scream "you're going to
need to read the description to understand what I mean here".
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the mythical
"person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to understand it.
Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will be asked to rule
based on their understanding of what the claims in question mean,
Well, ever since _Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc._ (1996) it's been clear that claim construction is purely a question
of law to be decided by the judge. (Typically in patent infringement
cases there's a pretrial "Markman hearing" where the parties argue for
particular interpretations of the claims before the judge.) So the
jury's understanding is necessarily the judge's understanding.
The judge, in deciding what the claims mean, is supposed to do so based on
the "person of ordinary skill in the art" standard, but easier said than
done. The jury gets to decide the question of infringement.
and
they won't be given the opportunity to read the description,
Why not?
nor would
they likely be qualified to understand it if they did. So it's best
if the claims can be understood correctly in isolation, with the
description merely providing the details of how to implement something
that practices them.
Another thing is that in several recent decisions the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals has moved towards a sort of "plain language"
approach to interpreting claim language -- like, it's better to interpret
a claim term based on its dictionary meaning rather than some special
meaning used in the specification (even though this would seem to
contradict the "patentee can be his own lexicographer" idea [which
itself is based on older case law]).
With respect to patent prosecution, patent examiners are notorious for
never reading the patent specification, so that's another reason for not
using "own lexicographer" language.
I think Areff's gloss on the quoted stuff is a fair summary. But I'm |
home from work right now and had hoped to have left it behind me...
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <31omhpF3cvg51U1@individual.net>, Don A. Gilmore
<eromlignodNOSPM@kc.rr.com> writes
| Quote: | "Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N9BUzkjbOktBFwU+@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
I suggest that a patent jury could be misled by a jigsaw patent that
implies the pieces hold together by mortise and tenon joints - unless
they do, in this new invention.
Apparently you've never dealt with patent applications.
|
I've been writing them, asserting them, defending them, and attacking
them, for over 30 years. It's my living, though I do trademarks as
well.
So having (reluctantly) admitted that I claim some authority in the
subject, I'd better add the requisite disclaimer: none of what I've
written here is legal advice. But I did want to coax the OP not to make
what I would class as an avoidable error in drafting.
| Quote: | The semantics are
not nearly so rigid. A description and illustrations that allow someone
skilled in the art to understand how the device works are all that is
required.
|
No. A definition of the monopoly claimed is also ultimately required,
though not in a US provisional application. But there's even more to it
than what is merely required. There is best practice for maximising
patent scope and strength to consider as well.
| Quote: | I have three patents and one pending and I largely wrote their
wording myself (with some guidance from my attorney).
Technical words in the English language are not handed down by divine edict,
nor must they stem back to the roots of human speech. In the ever-changing
world of engineering and science, one often must coin or borrow words if
there are no appropriate ones available to describe a new object or concept
(which is what you're *always* doing in a patent). In machine design this
often results in using part numbers instead. A machine can have thousands
of parts, so individually naming them becomes impractical. This by no means
makes the part naming less legal than some magically decreed name. The fact
that drawings are included in a patent ensures that there is no confusion
regarding terminology or configuration.
|
I wish.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don A. Gilmore
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:u0qwg39w.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: | IANAL, but from my own experience[1] while you are, indeed, allowed to
"be your own lexicographer" and define words any way you want, most
lawyers I've worked with warn away from using terms, especially in the
claims, in ways that could be misleading without reading the
description. If there's no word that's pretty close, it seems to be
better to use a term that will essentially scream "you're going to
need to read the description to understand what I mean here".
The reason for this appears to be[2] that it's not merely the mythical
"person with ordinary skill in the art" who needs to understand it.
Should the patent ever come to trial, a jury will be asked to rule
based on their understanding of what the claims in question mean, and
they won't be given the opportunity to read the description, nor would
they likely be qualified to understand it if they did. So it's best
if the claims can be understood correctly in isolation, with the
description merely providing the details of how to implement something
that practices them.
[1] Sixteen patents, twenty-four pending, and one being written.
[2] Again, this is not a legal opinion, nor legal advice
|
I wonder if the recent explosion of new patents has changed the way they are
(or should be) worded. Patents are numbered chronologically, i.e. the first
patent ever issued was patent #1. My first patent in 1998 was #5,756,913.
By the time I got my third patent, only five years later, the number had
shot up to 6,559,396, a jump of over 800,000 patents. That means that over
12% of all patents ever issued in the United States were issued during those
five years!
Since I haven't seen a huge inundation of fabulous, innovative products
lately (a phone with a camera...give me a break!), this seems to indicate
that there are huge amounts of frivolous patents being filed for by large,
hungry (and paranoid) companies like Microsoft and IBM that have the money
to do so "just in case". I'm much more impressed by a person who has only
one personally-owned patent for an actual, useful device than someone (like
many people I know) who has 46 of these corporate patents with their name on
them.
With so many active patents, there's bound to be a lot more litigation (they
can't *all* be frivolous). I suppose that this could be affecting the way
that such wording is interpreted and with what prudence we should choose our
nomenclature.
Don
Kansas City |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | [1] Sixteen patents, twenty-four pending, and one being written.
|
Really? For what? Oh... wait... ah, there you are. Hmmm. Well, I'm sure
it makes sense to people in the field.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:47 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
don groves <dgroves@domain.net> writes:
| Quote: | Depends on one's definition of "frivolous". Originally, a patent
was only awarded for a "thing", a made device which did something
original.
|
When was that? I'm pretty sure that the three main categories of
invention have always been patentable, and one of those is a "method"
for doing something (either something that wasn't done before or a
method for doing something in a novel way).
| Quote: | Ideas were not patentable. When the rules were changed to award
patents for algorithms (which are nothing but ideas), chemical
compounds, and genetic material, the explosion was on.
|
What's changed is that they've dropped the requirement that a method
has to have a describable effect on the physical world. The soundex
algorithm was patented in, I believe, 1919, but that was possible
because they described it as a way of indexing physical records and
keeping a physical index on cards or in a book. Now it would be
possible to get a patent for it as a method for indexing and querying
a database without having to show that there was activity outside of a
computer. Previously, a method for doing something in a computer
might have been "new" and "obvious", but since it didn't require a
specific effect on the external world, however slightly, it wasn't
"useful". Now the database and data themselves are seen as "things",
and querying them and managing them are seen as activities in the
world, so something that involves them can be "useful" in its own
right.
But (IANAL, etc.) an algorithm itself is still not patentable and we
still have to be careful about trying to claim one. It still has to
be a method for doing something in particular, and that something has
to be motivated as something somebody would want to do. The only
change is that the something somebody wants to do may happen inside a
computer. But the algorithm itself remains fair game outside of any
specific uses mentioned (or arguably implied) by the patent.
Which seems reasonable to me. If there's something that somebody
wants to do and somebody invents a novel way of doing it, that's the
sort of thing that patents are supposed to cover.[1]
Arguing against software patents as being merely algorithms is a lot
like arguing against many other patents as being merely applications
of "laws of nature" (also unpatentable), for example that when a
current is passed through a piano string it will heat up and expand,
thereby altering the pitch. Clearly, that's true, and once it's
pointed out, the broad claims of at least one of your patents become
obvious.[2] But that doesn't stop your invention from being novel and
worthy of a patent. Some of the best patents make you slap your head
and say "Of course! Why didn't I think of that?" But the fact is,
nobody else had.
[1] Whether the lifetime of a patent is reasonable given the current
pace of technological change is a completely different question.
[2] And I'm not even one with ordinary skill in the art.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in