www.intelproplaw.com | www.intelproplaw.com |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is a prototype always needed for patenting?[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Patent Forum ] [ FAQ ] Posted by M. Arthur Auslander on April 01, 2000 at 05:28:26: In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is a prototype always needed for patenting? posted by wes derrick on April 01, 2000 at 00:27:44: : : Please forgive the editing (wd) : : J Zhao wrote... : : : : : : The question is: : : : : : : Technically, no. Practically, yes. Why is this? If you cannot make it or practice the invention (or show that you can), you are going to have a tough time demonstrating that you have actually achieved reduction to practice. : Okay, this is wrong. One does not need a working example, only an disclosure that will work. : : : The filed application is constructive reduction to practice. : : All right. But if you do not reduce your invention to practice, either by prototyping or other testing (defined rather broadly perhaps), how can fulfill: (1) the written description requirement that would convince another that you were in possession of the invention and (2) write a specification that will enable an person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention? (And thereby avoid a rejection on the basis of USC 35 112 paragraph 1) : Like I stated above, a working example is clearly not necessary. However, I am curious as to how one is going to be able to know with any assurity that you have indeed written an enabling disclosure if you haven't reduced the invention to actual practice. :
|
www.intelproplaw.com |
The Intellectual Property Law Server Old Patent Forum |
www.intelproplaw.com |