Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Indefiniteness and protocols  (Read 3712 times)

khazzah

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
    • View Profile
    • Patent Prosecution Blog
Re: Indefiniteness and protocols
« Reply #15 on: 08-03-10 at 09:24 am »

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?
Logged
Karen Hazzah
Patent Prosecution Blog
http://allthingspros.blogspot.com/

Information provided in this post is not legal advice and does not create any attorney-client relationship.

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: Indefiniteness and protocols
« Reply #16 on: 08-03-10 at 11:12 am »

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.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.
Pages: 1 [2]
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 19 queries.