Indefiniteness and protocols

[khazzah]

At the same time, I don't think "a voice over internet protocol" is a standard. 

Gotcha. An important distinction that I glossed over.

I don't believe that such a phrase should be limited to those protocols considered to be "a voice over internet protocol" at the time of filing.

Agreed that "a VoIP protocol" is not at all like ANSI 1.23. [I just made that one up.] Because ANSI 1.23 is fixed at time of filing, where VoIP is not.

I think "voltage controller" should read on and cover transistors ... [as a simple substitution for the disclosed vaccum tubes.]

Are you relying on DoE for this coverage?

[JimIvey]

I think "voltage controller" should read on and cover transistors ... [as a simple substitution for the disclosed vaccum tubes.]

Are you relying on DoE for this coverage?

No.  I think "voltage controller" reads on both vacuum tubes and transistors.  In discussions of DoE, it's often asked if a claim reciting a vacuum tube should cover transistors and equivalents of vacuum tubes.

In my hypo, the practitioner was clever enough to recite something broader, covering transistors literally.

Ironically, such a claim might be invalid for failing to contain a written description of something that didn't exist yet -- transistors.

Regards.