Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
7

Practice differs across jurisdictions worldwide. The idea is the same behind all of them, but usually the tools to analyze enablement are different. I think patent attorneys don't like broad claims because they know it is tough to support them and the danger of having an invalid claim granted lures around. The applicant, unfortunately, is in most cases very ...


4

You haven't said what is actually claimed. But that's what matters. I have assumed that the claims relate to the particular method that you note is described. Enablement requires that the reader can put the claimed invention into practice. In the case you describe, you have implied that the reader could perform the steps of the method. It is therefore ...


4

The USPTO tries to follow the law and the rules. To show a person skilled in the art how to make and use an invention doesn't mean you need to give them production blueprints - especially in the "predictable arts". Also, the implementation the inventor describes doesn't need to work particularly well. One way to think about it might be "is there more ...


3

You are conflating two different questions. A person infringes a claim if they perform all the steps of it. It generally doesn't matter whether the original inventors foresaw the particular details of that infringement. Enablement affects the validity of a claim. That is, a claim may be invalid if it is not suitably enabled, independently of whether it is ...


3

Applying the criteria that you quote from section 112, the question is not whether you can build the same parser element but whether you can build the invention - perhaps using any one of several parsers to satisfy the parser element of the invention. Not every element of a claimed invention has to be defined in excruciating detail. The question is whether ...


3

If the application is still pending, you may even attempt filing third-party submission (if still possible), and state that the publication is relevant to 101/utility. However, it sounds like this period has passed. Following on from Maca's comments about duty of good faith, it may be considered a responsibility of the applicants to bring the publication ...


3

It depends. If they are claiming (in the claims) the results or something related to the results, then maybe. If however they are claiming for example the method and it's described in a way that someone can reproduce it, then probably not. It doesn't matter if the results of that method are bogus if someone skilled in the art could still perform the method....


2

In the US case, I would also like to add that reverse doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may apply as implicit claim scope limitation. Reverse DOE essentially says literally infringing structure may not infringe if it does not satisfy all of the traditional function-way-result requirements. E.g., see the wikipedia article. This would apply to the previous ...


2

Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified? Yes. The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope. The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at MPEP § 2164.02: For a claimed genus, ...


2

This is a neat set of questions. Here are some of my thoughts related to it: 1) In your example, you are making a fan with very specialized fan blades. I don't think that a normal fan maker is someone of ordinary skill in the art. Because the patent is related to aerodynamics issues for making a very specific and specialized fan blade, one of the art ...


1

The document WO1997013970A1 is not a patent. It is a publication of an international patent application. There is no corresponding U.S. Patent. More details on this international application are available on the WIPO Website.


1

In the United States, your patent application must be enabling, meaning that somebody of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention after reading the patent application. There is no requirement for a prototype to be submitted. A patent cannot issue if the underlying invention doesn't work, because patents can only issue for inventions that are ...


1

To hopefully further expound on what user96 said, this patent sounds a whole lot like the Interpreter Pattern, but in patent-speak. One or more regular expressions would certainly constitute an appropriate set of grammars for certain actions (e.g., call a phone number), and for more complex grammatical rules, you could use a tool (ANTLR, Bison, Yacc, etc) to ...


1

I am a normal software engineer. And, after reading the patent, I do not know how to make the parser, because there are many possible implementations of the parser, and all of them have drawbacks. ... I will have to strongly consider how to implement the parser and how to define the grammar file. Also, I do not know, which is the best mode ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible