tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post1360670169389682817..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board finds "a portion of the adhesive strip" does not read on the entire stripKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-91023789139107917762013-11-02T23:20:58.261-04:002013-11-02T23:20:58.261-04:00"Your continued insistence that it does just ..."Your continued insistence that it does just confirms you're a triumphantly ignorant tard."<br /><br />I have never insisted anything of the sort tar d. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-62923120051251042872013-11-02T23:19:56.976-04:002013-11-02T23:19:56.976-04:00""plausible" = "broadest reaso...""plausible" = "broadest reasonable". "<br /><br />Why on earth would "plausible" mean "broadest reasonable"? You're such a ta rd sometimes Karen. It just means reasonable or probable. It is emminently probable that the applicant is using the term the same way thousands of other people use it day in and day out in his art and others to boot. <br /><br />"If that's true, then the claim is not indefinite, because the Board found only one BRI. "<br /><br />Just because the board found only one BRI doesn't mean that the other interpretation is unreasonable, especially if the issue was never raised to them. Review bodies can generally only, and for that matter, only generally, make decisions on the issues presented to them. <br /><br />"Surely Miyazaki can't mean that every time the Examiner and the Applicant disagree (or even take opposite positions on) claim interpretation, the claim is therefore indefinite"<br /><br />Not every time, but the vast majority of times. That's what it is there to sort out Karen. It's the office's trump card where it is being reasonable even though the applicant would like another interpretation to be adopted sans their putting it in the claim. All Miyazaki is there for is to clarify what the applicant is talking about and make sure that gets in the claim. <br /><br />Although no, a miyazaki issue is not raised where the office believes there is only one reasonable interpretation, the one it has already adopted. This happens where the applicant's interpretation is found to be unreasonable by the office. That does happen sometimes. And in those cases no miyazaki issue is raised. Though a note on the record stating that one would be raised if the applicant's interpretation were found to be reasonable by any reviewer would be properly added to the record so that everyone is clear that a 112 would then appear on a finding of both interpretations being reasonable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-722996107874307282013-11-02T23:05:20.640-04:002013-11-02T23:05:20.640-04:00The board is full of t ards, a fact we see confirm...The board is full of t ards, a fact we see confirmed on this very board week in and week out. What of it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-66800146392805889682013-10-28T14:13:29.259-04:002013-10-28T14:13:29.259-04:00"locally heating (208) the adhesive strip (20..."locally heating (208) the adhesive strip (202) to selectively melt a portion of the adhesive on the adhesive strip in a vicinity of less than all of the plural sheets to be bound"<br /><br />If I'm interpreting that to mean what you think it means, then I cite the doctrine of claim differentiation. I win. K thx bye now. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-19739297699665922592013-10-28T14:09:34.226-04:002013-10-28T14:09:34.226-04:00"not cnsistent with what one of ordinary skil..."not cnsistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art, after having read the patent (application), would interpret it to mean, then it's not the BRI"<br /><br />Except here it is consistent with that. Whoopsie on your part. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-92068402176159622182013-10-26T14:26:14.357-04:002013-10-26T14:26:14.357-04:00> prime opportunity to apply miyazaki though.
...> prime opportunity to apply miyazaki though. <br />>The one construction is only a portion and <br />>the other is simply a portion. <br /><br />Miyazaki applies where there are two "plausible" constructions. Now, I've not seen any decisions about what "plausible" means, but let's assume here that "plausible" = "broadest reasonable". <br /><br />If that's true, then the claim is not indefinite, because the Board found only one BRI. <br /><br />Surely Miyazaki can't mean that every time the Examiner and the Applicant disagree (or even take opposite positions on) claim interpretation, the claim is therefore indefinite.<br />Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-63738898132961881692013-10-26T14:16:00.071-04:002013-10-26T14:16:00.071-04:00>Uh, no. If I paint an entire wall, I've al...>Uh, no. If I paint an entire wall, I've also painted a portion of the wall.<br /><br />True statement, but not relevant. <br /><br />First, in ordinary conversation, the utterance "painted an entire wall" isn't meant to convey anything about portions. All your true statement it tells us is that "all" includes "a portion." In fact, all portions. <br /><br />Your (true) statement doesn't speak to how, in ordinary conversation, we interpret the phrase "a portion". Which is the phrase at issue.<br /><br />To re-use your context, I submit that when a person says "I painted a portion of the wall", he did *not* mean that he painted the *entire* wall. In fact, the speaker's choice to use the phrase "a portion" shows that he meant to convey just the opposite: that he *only* painted a portion. So while the phrase itself was silent about "all" or "only", the context implies "only." <br /><br />Agree? Disagree? Note that here I'm discussing ordinary conversation, not the special context of patent claims. <br />Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-75442911280967921372013-10-26T08:23:59.024-04:002013-10-26T08:23:59.024-04:00What are you rambling about?What are you rambling about?vuorghttp://forum.vuorg.com/forum.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-69904775398905188322013-10-25T16:34:06.351-04:002013-10-25T16:34:06.351-04:00TP's talking about canons of claim constructio...TP's talking about canons of claim construction. Don't worry about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-69297298021761284772013-10-25T16:30:56.730-04:002013-10-25T16:30:56.730-04:00What are you rambling about?What are you rambling about?AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-62511787757068546572013-10-25T16:04:48.084-04:002013-10-25T16:04:48.084-04:00"You don't "selectively" melt a..."You don't "selectively" melt anything when you melt the entire adhesive strip."<br /><br />I do. I "selectively" melt the first portion and then I "selectively" melt the second (final) portion. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-39637861034415566042013-10-25T16:01:05.390-04:002013-10-25T16:01:05.390-04:00"Was there such an embodiment (i.e. entire) d..."Was there such an embodiment (i.e. entire) disclosed in the application?"<br /><br />Ah, I see, claim scope is limited to disclosed embodiments. Makes more sense all the time.<br /><br />But wait. Not even a "means plus function" is limited to disclosed embodiments.<br /><br />Never mind. For a brief moment, I thought you had something.ThomasPainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-53389243078455971702013-10-25T15:23:13.196-04:002013-10-25T15:23:13.196-04:00"...than I thought.""...than I thought."AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26692256649057615552013-10-25T13:23:05.270-04:002013-10-25T13:23:05.270-04:00I just noticed that claim 10 recites, "locall...I just noticed that claim 10 recites, "locally heating (208) the adhesive strip (202) to selectively melt a portion of the adhesive on the adhesive strip in a vicinity of less than all of the plural sheets to be bound." You don't "selectively" melt anything when you melt the entire adhesive strip. <br /><br />6tard's "one construction" is even more wrong than I though.<br /><br />Shocking.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-43495747385321862002013-10-25T12:55:41.542-04:002013-10-25T12:55:41.542-04:00"You read the word 'only' into the cl..."You read the word 'only' into the claim to be 'consistent' with an embodiment in the specification?"<br /><br />Was there such an embodiment (i.e. entire) disclosed in the application?<br /><br />"Well, when you say it that way..."<br /><br />Did the examiner say it that way, or did the examiner say, "Hur,hur, I'm interpreting 'entire' to read on 'portion' because I needs muh count"?AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-142393510796976662013-10-25T11:38:21.822-04:002013-10-25T11:38:21.822-04:00You read the word "only" into the claim ...You read the word "only" into the claim to be "consistent" with an embodiment in the specification? Well, when you say it that way, it makes perfect sense.ThomasPainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-20053429134753224192013-10-25T11:22:50.429-04:002013-10-25T11:22:50.429-04:00"It depends on the context of course."
..."It depends on the context of course."<br /><br />No sh!t, Sherlock. That's why the BRI is constrained by the two limitations I mentioned. BRI is not what the claim could mean, especially what the claim could mean to an examiner whose sole motivation is reject the claim and git dat count. If your intepretation is not consistent with applicant's use of the term "portion" and not cnsistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art, after having read the patent (application), would interpret it to mean, then it's not the BRI. <br /><br />Jeebus H. Chr!stmas you's ignant.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-73587533084394606952013-10-25T10:10:19.515-04:002013-10-25T10:10:19.515-04:00"I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that ..."I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that outside the patent context, "a portion of" is interpreted as ONLY a portion."<br /><br />Uh, no. If I paint an entire wall, I've also painted a portion of the wall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-28555340535605157532013-10-24T19:05:24.593-04:002013-10-24T19:05:24.593-04:00"I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that ..."I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that outside the patent context, "a portion of" is interpreted as ONLY a portion. <br /><br />Can one of the folks advocating for portion-includes-whole explain what canon of claim construction allows your interpretation, one that counter to ordinary meaning? "<br /><br />I'm not sure that I do agree that a portion in everyday language excludes a whole when used as in a sentence as here. It depends on the context of course. If you say to a child eat a portion of your cookie, are you excluding the child from eating the whole cookie? What if you also hand them a picture of a cookie half eaten? If on the other hand you're making a sign and say put a color of permanent marker on a portion of a blank sign so as to make a sign that conveys information then surely you exclude the whole as you'd just have a different colored blank page. <br /><br />In the present context it seems plain he wanted to exclude the whole. It was the examiner's fault for not telling him to put it in the claim and citing miyazaki after the first response. <br /><br />As to a cannon, sure thing toots, BRI. It's what we in the office use to settle these exact issues before they head to court and the alleged infringer is doing the whole thing while the prior art blatantly shows doing the whole thing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89697268684570025892013-10-24T15:30:13.694-04:002013-10-24T15:30:13.694-04:00Good luck establishing that any one of the books i...Good luck establishing that any one of the books in the library was made according to the claimed methods at issue in this case.<br /><br />Tard.<br /><br />"I still can't believe we have a library here still but for some reason we do."<br /><br />It's obviously not doing you any good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-73295639059368239892013-10-24T15:10:56.053-04:002013-10-24T15:10:56.053-04:00"Can one of the folks advocating for portion-..."Can one of the folks advocating for portion-includes-whole explain what canon of claim construction allows your interpretation..."<br /><br />Karen,<br /><br />The folks advocating that "canon of claim construction" are examinertards, in particular 6tard, and what allows it is their need to get their counts. So any claim construction that allows them to read a reference on the claim, reject the claim (knowing that a rejection will be signed by their SPE/primary with no questions asked), and get their count is just fine with them.<br /><br />And when you tell them that their construction of the claim is counter to ordinary meaning, the response you will get is, "Yeah? So what? I got my count."<br /><br />"In *some* contexts, the canon that trumps ordinary meaning is 'comprising is an open-ended term and allows for additional elements.'"<br /><br />There are many examinertards, SPEtard, and APJtards who wrongly believe in, and practice, this canon of claim construction. To see an example of one APJtard who did (and probably still does), see In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009). AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-20899023451617138262013-10-24T13:41:18.192-04:002013-10-24T13:41:18.192-04:00Seems like we agree there are two possible interpr...Seems like we agree there are two possible interpretations of "a portion of X." One: only a portion of X. Two: at least a portion of X. <br /><br />I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that outside the patent context, "a portion of" is interpreted as ONLY a portion. <br /><br />Can one of the folks advocating for portion-includes-whole explain what canon of claim construction allows your interpretation, one that counter to ordinary meaning? <br /><br />In some contexts, that canon would something along the lines of "applicant's usage trumps ordinary meaning". But here, no one has suggested that the Applicant used "portion" in a manner other than its ordinary meaning. <br /><br />In *some* contexts, the canon that trumps ordinary meaning is "comprising is an open-ended term and allows for additional elements." But I say "comprising" as a preamble doesn't reach into every term in the claim and open it up all terms to "at least". Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-59029637779407426832013-10-24T10:23:14.329-04:002013-10-24T10:23:14.329-04:00"The one construction is only a portion and t..."The one construction is only a portion and the other is simply a portion."<br /><br />Your invincible, willful ignorance is incredible.<br /><br />The BRI is constrained by two very important limitations, which examinertards, SPEtards, and APJtards, almost always conveniently forget. The BRI must be 1) consistent with applicant's use of the term AND 2) consistent with the interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach. In this case, a construction of "portion" to include "entire" would not be consistent with applicant's use of the term "portion" and would also be inconsistent with the interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would reach. The APJ's in this case got it exactly right. You know what they say about blind squirrels.<br /><br />BRI does not include any and all clever interpretations examiners can dream up in order to get a reference to read on a claim. Your continued insistence that it does just confirms you're a triumphantly ignorant tard.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-50523978097836974882013-10-22T15:59:17.478-04:002013-10-22T15:59:17.478-04:00Oh so now books in the library, easily scannable i...Oh so now books in the library, easily scannable into edan just aren't evidence, and are insufficient to establish facts, and you're amazed. <br /><br />No, you're just a tard. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-53900436586142931992013-10-22T15:56:21.453-04:002013-10-22T15:56:21.453-04:00"Right. I know that. There's a whole bunc..."Right. I know that. There's a whole bunch of "standard procedures" at the PTO that are legally improper"<br /><br />Well then, why don't you whine directly to your pto management, aka the director? I don't know if the incoming replacement director will be available at the gym or not like past ones have been, but if you want then I could get you in. Perhaps for a price. <br /><br />But I'm sorry bucko, this instant situation isn't going to change. It's a fundamental consequence of language which the PTO has no control over. <br /><br />And I should add that I'm not too much of a fan of the rigid>flexible case. But, depending on the circumstance I could see why that position was taken. If I had to guess though it was probably in a depending claim, the examiner rejected it like that just to get the case moving, the applicant argued it and moved it up, and the examiner simply stuck to the same position. That's a danger, or perhaps you might call it a feature, of requiring examiners (who are human beings, and who have the intrinsic want to "be right" that all humans have) to examine depending claims which is currently built into the system. If you prefer we not examine them then that would be acceptable to me. I have suggested such on occasioni and at least one SPE I know of is on board. <br /><br />And before you get all boo hooey on me you should realize that personally most of my cases don't even go to RCE and I haven't had so much as an pre-appeal in years. The apps I prosecute get done in ridiculously low amounts of time with ridiculously low amounts of money spent for what they're getting. <br /><br />" Yeah, the Director should get all the TC Directors and SPE's and QAS's in a room and tell them the next a$$hat who greenlights an appeal like that is going back to examining."<br /><br />I don't think that would go over very well, you'd make a pretty bad leader, or else you'd shape up into a better leader when you got the job. You don't seem to understand politics, even office politics, very well. <br /><br />"Here's a newsflash 6tard: reading words into the claim that aren't there isn't reasonable. "<br /><br />Exactly what I'm saying. Too bad the board did that. <br /><br />The applicant simply said portion. The reference does a portion. It even goes above and beyond and does more. The applicant is relying specifically on not going above and beyond and ONLY doing a portion. I should note that it would be simple enough to get such on the record in an interview, at which point 112 takes over commanding them to claim what they subjectively believe to be their invention. Problem solved. Everyone moves on with their life. <br /><br />And you should be aware, even though you seem to not be, people ROUTINELY use the word "portion" in just the manner I've described and which the examiner correctly presumed it to be used in the first place. <br /><br />"Exactly as the Board noted in its reversal."<br /><br />Awww did the pretty whittle boardtard make a boo boo? It's fine. I've seen much more egregious things than this. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com