tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post318829195621911179..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: District court finds claim impossible to infringe, and also invalid on four separate groundsKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-17742677190241960362010-08-04T16:15:13.999-04:002010-08-04T16:15:13.999-04:00Robert, thanks for you comments.
>I haven'...Robert, thanks for you comments. <br /><br />>I haven't looked at the drawings or read the <br />spec<br /><br />Nor have I, so I'll second your caveat. <br /><br />>the word need not strictly mean "on top of" <br />>in the spatial sense.<br /><br />I think we can tell from the claims alone that this is basically a "mechanical case" so I would expect the word to be used in its spatial sense. <br /><br />Plus, if the patentee conceded the point, the probably have zero argument for another meaning, since they *did* argue some other weak points.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-88303221192595562872010-08-04T15:51:07.315-04:002010-08-04T15:51:07.315-04:00"The patentee accepted that the plain meaning..."The patentee accepted that the plain meaning of 'superposed' was 'above.'"<br /><br />With the caveat that I haven't looked at the drawings or read the spec to see how it defines (explicitly or implicitly) the word "superposed", the word need not strictly mean "on top of" in the spatial sense. It can mean "overlapping" or "congruently touching". Superposed waves are not actually "on top of" each other (they exist in the same medium); the "principle of superposition" in circuit theory does not literally place one circuit on top of another, physically, but indicates a kind of mathematically separable commingling of inputs and flows.Robert K Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320641533825974319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41783385207425884482010-08-03T17:52:13.407-04:002010-08-03T17:52:13.407-04:00O I thought that was a case citation for why they ...O I thought that was a case citation for why they held the way they held, my bad. <br /><br />Here is a link:<br /><br />http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15632215048367943905&q=Frazier+v.+Wireline+Solutions,+LLC,+C-10-3,+S.D.+Tex.,+July+16,+2010&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000000002<br /><br />"Might not get more than a 1-page affirmance Don't know that there's anything interesting for the Fed Cir to say. "<br /><br />Exactly. Thankfully, the "impossible to implement" enablement requirement apparently has already been ruled on prior to this case and they gave citations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-19004955190583164712010-08-03T17:10:10.696-04:002010-08-03T17:10:10.696-04:00>You have a link and/or cite?
Only what I gave...>You have a link and/or cite? <br />Only what I gave in the first paragraph of the post.<br /><br />>might this not be grounds for malpractice? <br /><br />Dunno a lot about patent malpractice. But generally speaking, proving damages and causation can be difficult, even in cases where negligence is clear.<br /><br />>BAM JD. WHERE'S YOUR WANDS NOW<br /><br />Oooh, looks like Anon1 won the first round on this -- a court affirms an enablement rejection with no Wands analysis. <br /><br />I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't fight an enablement rejection for a claim that was inoperative as written. Maybe I would thank the Examiner for pointing that out to me and saving me from a possible malpractice claim. <br /><br />>The things lawlyers will argue. <br /><br />Litigation is a very different context than prosecution. If a case goes to court, there is almost certainly a substantial sum of money at stake. In which case it could be perfectly sensible to argue what might appear to be a minor point. <br /><br />>I hope this case goes to the CAFC <br /><br />Might not get more than a 1-page affirmance Don't know that there's anything interesting for the Fed Cir to say.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-37160289449607890062010-08-03T16:20:41.774-04:002010-08-03T16:20:41.774-04:00Karen, what case is this? You have a link and/or ...Karen, what case is this? You have a link and/or cite? <br /><br />Looks kind of like one of my rejections. Lol. <br /><br />"The court treated as fatal the patentee's refusal to admit error in the claim"<br /><br />The things lawlyers will argue. I swear a great many of the lawlyers involved in my cases are worse for their client's cases than any results of an examination I could ever do. <br /><br />This guy/girl did such a bad job might this not be grounds for malpractice? <br /><br />'Since the claim recited an impossible limitation, the court also found that the claim failed to meet the enablement and utility requirements, citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999):"<br /><br />BAM JD. WHERE'S YOUR WANDS NOW MO FO? WHERE?<br /><br />I THOUGHT THERE WAS A ZERO PERCENT CHANCE EH? ZERO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! <br /><br />LOOKS MORE LIKE A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CHANCE TO ME. <br /><br />I hope this case goes to the CAFC and they pave over this result for all time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com