tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post318003577942108215..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds "planar" means "flat" not "thin"Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-90621825740303036712011-06-30T09:13:40.866-04:002011-06-30T09:13:40.866-04:00"I'm not sure 'plate' connotes &#..."I'm not sure 'plate' connotes 'thin' as well as you think at the thicknesses at issue."<br /><br />The claims must be interpreted by those skilled in the art. As such, when considering whether a layer in a semiconductor is considered thin or not you cannot look the art of chroming automobile parts.<br /><br />"I doubt if they needed to define this 'imporant' word as of the time of drafting because it didn't seem imporant then."<br />They at least needed to look the term up in the dictionary because it doesn't mean what they thought it meant.<br /><br />FYI -- the reason why attorneys get paid the big bucks is because they should be dotting every i and crossing every t. If a term is in your claim, you better well know what it means -- thinking you know what it means doesn't cut it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26187035559677579352011-06-29T20:40:34.263-04:002011-06-29T20:40:34.263-04:00I'm not sure "plate" connotes "...I'm not sure "plate" connotes "thin" as well as you think at the thicknesses at issue (0.17 in vs 0.010 in). dinner plates are about 0.17 in thick, also plate armor, etcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-91324899771888037352011-06-29T18:07:24.896-04:002011-06-29T18:07:24.896-04:00I don't know if the examiner's combination...I don't know if the examiner's combination of the prior art was correct but I think they had a reasonable interpretation of 'planar'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-4466567197437343222011-06-29T13:03:10.100-04:002011-06-29T13:03:10.100-04:00I doubt if they needed to define this "impora...I doubt if they needed to define this "imporant" word as of the time of drafting because it didn't seem imporant then. Whoever drafted the application is probably 100% well aware that this definition this attorney wanted to use here would be re tarded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-79707862749941907162011-06-29T00:48:26.248-04:002011-06-29T00:48:26.248-04:00Move along ... bad attorney argument ... nothing t...Move along ... bad attorney argument ... nothing to see.<br /><br />Actually, the problem is something I see in too many specifications -- failure to define important terms.<br /><br />Too many attorneys get caught up in the "I don't want to define the term because I don't want the claim to be interpreted too narrowly." If you don't define the term, the Examiner (or BPAI will) and they'll define it much broader than you want.<br /><br />You have a choice -- either define it yourself or have the Examiner/BPAI define it for you. Odds are that you'll be much happier with the result when you define it yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com