tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post6602843006132421734..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds "i is occasionally greater than one" does not conflict with "i is invariant"Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-64118143605455034732010-09-15T14:54:08.996-04:002010-09-15T14:54:08.996-04:00"Occasional means there must be at least one ..."Occasional means there must be at least one time, i.e., an occasion. "<br /><br />If that be true I'd make an objection. And a 112 2nd using their own argument as evidence that they weren't claiming what they subjectively believe to be the invention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-31406974953060712512010-09-15T11:01:25.865-04:002010-09-15T11:01:25.865-04:00>Occasional means there must be at least one
&...>Occasional means there must be at least one <br />>time, i.e., an occasion. <br /><br />Hmmm. OK, I agree there is no indefiniteness under your definition. <br /><br />I was thinking of something more like the dictionary definition: "at times; from time to time; now and then."<br /><br />Under the dictionary definition, I still say indefinite, because I don't know how often "from time to time" occurs. <br /><br />>claims are to be read "in light of the <br />>specification" and not in a vacuum. <br /><br />Agreed that the spec supports your interpretation. Always a fine line between "reading in light of the spec" and "importing limitations from the spec".Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-21266564284932382972010-09-15T10:33:30.864-04:002010-09-15T10:33:30.864-04:00I agree with the board. Incidentally, the PTO had ...I agree with the board. Incidentally, the PTO had issued a 112, 2nd par. rejection but withdrew it after reopening prosecution following the first appeal brief. Always > 1 certainly satisfies "AT LEAST occasionally >1". It might be useful to reduce this to Venn diagram analysis. In addition, claims are to be read "in light of the specification" and not in a vacuum. The spec seems clear enough regarding the board's interpretation. Occasional means there must be at least one time, i.e., an occasion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-84467780192344437382010-09-14T20:33:38.724-04:002010-09-14T20:33:38.724-04:00Adam E said:
>I agree with the Board ... the ev...Adam E said:<br />>I agree with the Board ... the event must <br />>occur at least occasionally, but it may occur <br />>more often (e.g. always, or almost always). <br /><br />Yeah, I got that part. My original question remains: how often is "occasionally" ? I say "occasionally" makes the independent claim indefinite.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-40537257980718068792010-09-14T15:48:18.726-04:002010-09-14T15:48:18.726-04:00"And you express no opinion on the independen..."And you express no opinion on the independent claim? "<br /><br />Exactly, a hypothetical 112 at issue is not a 112 issue, but a hypothetical parent claim itself... well, lol 112 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-21991225312444923132010-09-14T14:46:10.839-04:002010-09-14T14:46:10.839-04:00>Section 112 rejection the Board reversed was
...>Section 112 rejection the Board reversed was <br />>for lack of enablement (first paragraph), <br />>rather than indefiniteness. <br /><br />Hey, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I'll revise the post.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-43455183001280807792010-09-14T14:25:22.885-04:002010-09-14T14:25:22.885-04:00Good point. I see no indefiniteness problem with ...Good point. I see no indefiniteness problem with claim 1. I'd be surprised if it was novel, but I think the term "at least occasionally" has a definite meaning (i.e. something that occurs on a number of occasions greater than two and up to always (or an infinite number of occasions)).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13704089041101163420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-13671211913807795812010-09-14T14:22:19.212-04:002010-09-14T14:22:19.212-04:00The Section 112 rejection the Board reversed was f...The Section 112 rejection the Board reversed was for lack of enablement (first paragraph), rather than indefiniteness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34650789579194163802010-09-14T11:30:03.064-04:002010-09-14T11:30:03.064-04:00>I agree with the board.
About the *dependent*...>I agree with the board.<br /><br />About the *dependent* claim not being indefinite? And you express no opinion on the independent claim? <br /><br />Or are you saying that you see no problem with the independent claim either?Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-4600054105739190422010-09-14T11:04:34.745-04:002010-09-14T11:04:34.745-04:00I agree with the board. I understand "at lea...I agree with the board. I understand "at least occasionally" to mean that the event can occur either occasionally (i.e. more than once) or more often than occasionally. In other words, the event must occur at least occasionally, but it may occur more often (e.g. always, or almost always). <br /><br />No indefiniteness here. Move along.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13704089041101163420noreply@blogger.com