Patent reform

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Patent reform

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Kalman posted:

If there's something in the spec that tells us what about three feet means, then we know what it means. If not, the claim is invalid as indefinite. (Amgen v Chugai, 927 f2d 1200.)

E: based on a quick look at the spec, which only says "35 inches plus or minus enough not to change the perspective" I'd say there's a reasonable invalidity argument.

"There's a reasonable invalidity argument" doesn't change the fact that the patent now exists and is presumed to be valid, and that argument will now have to wait to be pursued by expensive patent attorneys hired by whatever yoga streaming company Yogaglo decides to sue first on this bullshit.

EDIT: Or I guess some other yoga streaming companies could kickstart a reexam :v:

# ¿ Dec 13, 2013 17:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:31

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Paul MaudDib posted:

That's kind of like saying that a claim that involves driving a car at "about 47 miles per hour" wouldn't cover driving a car at 45 miles an hour or 50 miles per hour because at those settings the high-speed/low-speed jets in the carb are injecting different amounts of fuel and that means the car is operating differently.

A claim that involves driving a car at "about 47 miles per hour" would be invalid for indefiniteness absent some guidance in the specification or prosecution history as to what sort of +/- range "about" meant.

# ¿ May 10, 2014 01:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Patent reform