| Author |
Message |
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:05 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
In message <Xns95CC99E85F21Fmnitabachacedslcom@216.196.97.140>, Michael
Nitabach <mnitabach@acedsl.com> writes
| Quote: |
I have never heard a patent referred to as "wide" or "covetous" in the
United States. Could you give some examples of these uses?
"Broad" seems to be the US standard, but elsewhere it is probably just a |
more common form than "wide", not the exclusive form. I'd be surprised
if there were any legal distinction, and "wide" is perfectly understood
in the US. "Covetous" is not a concept I know from US patent law or
practice, but it is old in other jurisdictions looking to the English
Statute of Monopolies as their common heritage. A covetous claim is
invalid at common law, because the patentee is too greedy, laying claim
to more than he has contributed to the art by his disclosure.
Some cites from non-US sources if interested:
Japanese author's comment on US law:
http://www.iip.or.jp/e/summary/pdf/detail2001/e13_9.pdf
(2) Functional Claims Under Distinctness Rule
An opinion has existed that functional claims
do not comply with the principle of distinctness set
forth in 35 USC §112(2). In fact, in the Halliburton
Supreme Court decision, a patent claim was
decided as being invalid as being indefinite and too
wide.
Australia:
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patents/manual/Part208.pdf
"A patentee may rightly claim a monopoly wider in extent than
what he has invented. If he has discovered a general principle
or invented a general method and discloses one way of carrying
it out, he may claim all ways of carrying it out, but 'he is not
entitled to claim a monopoly more extensive than is necessary to
protect what he has himself said is his invention'. He cannot
claim all solutions to a problem unless invention lies in the
identification of the problem."
But a wide claim to an application of a principle must not be so
extensive as to amount to any method of solving a particular
problem.
Canada:
http://www.jurisdiction.com/patweb06.htm#d
D. COVETOUS CLAIMING
A claim is invalid if it monopolizes more than the inventor:
a. actually invented (an inventor may not validly claim what he
or she has not invented); or
b. described in the patent (an inventor may not validly claim
what he or she has not described).
...
It is covetous to attempt to monopolize all methods of achieving
a particular end by claiming the end rather than the method of
achieving it.(72) In the claims one can describe a class of
substances or compounds by their characteristics, thereby
covering all the substances which would work for that
purpose.(73)
...
If an article is new, useful, and has subject-matter, it is
patentable. But the claim may be for something new, useful and
which has subject-matter, yet it may be too wide because it
extends beyond the subject-matter of the invention. A claim may
be too wide if it claims protection for something the patentee
isn't entitled to protect.
United Kingdom:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/reference/biotechguide/micro.htm
91 The width of a claim using a micro-organism to produce an
end product e.g. an antibiotic depends on where the invention
lies. When the invention is in the discovery of a new end
product a wide process claim of the type "A process for the
manufacture of antibiotic X by culturing an X-producing strain
of Streptococcus pilosus in a nutrient medium" would be allowed
but even here regard is had to whether the description
demonstrates that more than one strain had been used.
Google for much more on "patent claim covetous" (no quotes).
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:46 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Donna Richoux wrote:
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
If the patent application is too wide, covetous, or laughable, and the
patent is rejected, then you wouldn't hear about it. No?
US patent applications are a matter of public record as soon as they are
filed, whether or not they're approved.
Not true. US patent applications are confidential until they're
published (see 37 CFR 1.14), which, for applications filed since Nov. 29,
1999, is generally 18 months from the filing date (unless there's a
secrecy order or the patent applicant requests non-publication and doesn't
file in other countries).
|
All right, the interval between submitting the application and it being
published is longer than I thought, then. But my point is that at the
time they are published, they are still merely *applications*. It's not
the case that only approved, issued patents are made public and that
rejected ones stay secret.
Though, I suppose the Patent Office might still have a lower threshold
-- some applications might be submitted that are so obviously
incomplete, insufficient, and inappropriate that they would't even make
it through that initial stage. So that would match up to what Tony said.
| Quote: | Pending applications filed prior to that date
are generally confidential until the patent issues, I believe. You could
do a FOIA request to find out information on unpublished applications,
however.
|
I have no experience with patents filed in or before 1999.
| Quote: |
Information regarding rejections of published applications is available to
the public, but you have to pay for it.
|
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:38 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Just for the record, the device described in my one and only patent
application was stolen from me by a government man I went to for
advice, who had some buddies in industry. The device they made, using
the idea, worked too, I'll have you know. Pisses me off a tiny bit
because I suspect John made some money out of the deal, while I made
not a penny, the GS 15 son-of-a-bitch. He was, too, clever or not.
|
To quote Stupid Asshole Riggs:
"By the way, this is alt.usage.*english*."
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Hart
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: jigsaw puzzle pieces |
|
|
GIF users can argue that "data character" includes bits encoding
characters (e.g. ASCII) but not raw bits, pixels, and the like which
don't take the form characters. There is a good case for this if the
specifications and claims describe only compression of text or
characters and not other kinds of data.
| Quote: | The actual patent, which has an astonishing 236 claims is for
In a data compression and data decompression method, a compression
method for compressing a stream of data character signals into a
compressed stream of code signals, said compression method
comprising the steps of ...
Terry Welch, High Speed Data Compression and Decompression
Apparatus and Method, US Patent No. 4,558,302 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in