Timeline for Is it possible defend unity objection with amendments
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21 at 11:14 | vote | accept | ASA | ||
| Jun 26 at 3:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Feb 27 at 2:08 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jan 28 at 1:30 | answer | added | picibucor | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 15, 2023 at 17:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 15, 2023 at 16:47 | comment | added | George White♦ | I incorporated your comment into your question. In the future that is a better way to clarify a question. | |
| Nov 15, 2023 at 16:45 | answer | added | George White♦ | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 15, 2023 at 16:08 | history | edited | George White♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 243 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2023 at 13:05 | comment | added | ASA | Claim 1 is fibre (not novel) and claim 2 is dependent and is about sub feature of fibre (like density of etc) and is novel and claim 3 defines textile product comprise fibre of claim 1 + another feature. Claim 1 and 2 has no unity problem. | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 19:09 | comment | added | George White♦ | Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1? And 1 and 2 do not have unity of invention? | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 8:47 | history | asked | ASA | CC BY-SA 4.0 |