Dennis Crouch asks why so many patents appear indecipherable and what can be done about it? Good questions of fact.
Always willing to speak the truth, however unpleasant which can be, I am here to give my answers.
In reality, this is only a variant of the old question what supposedly lawyers affable written to the intricate, despair is made. The answer is that the bitter experience required.
Note: write a simple contract in which Bob Jones undertakes to sell their house and Fred Smith undertakes to buy it. All s up to Bob says that "House" does not include the not connected garage - and the Court agrees. (Hmmm, better articulate clearly next time...) Later, someone says that "House" and "garage" do not include the tree house in the back yard - and again the Court agrees. You get the idea. Nothing changes when patents - prudence are involved and bitter experience we recommend better articulate things in detail.
To also travel you.
The dirty secret little processing of patents is clear declarations in a patent application are anathema and the clear sign of a rookie Editor. The rules are legion: "Never use the word 'invention'." "Never say 'it'." "Cannot call a resistance resistance - call it 'a means of impedance' instead." The ironic joke is that the language used in patents is supposed to be of people "specialized in the art", but never once heard an engineer real call for "a means of impedance" or suggest replacing the "active element which preferably, but not necessarily, takes the form of a terminal three semiconductor or similar device."
The real blame lies not tax patents but with a judiciary that, on the one hand, says it is fully able to decide cases very technical, but on the other it refuses to develop skills required to do so. That the courts can one to think that manganese and magnesium are the same, and add 2 more 3 is somehow completely and materially different than adding 3 more 2, lawyers, with the full support of your customers continue to do so. And those who have learned the most difficult of what can happen when naively assume common sense way prevail, soon learn not to make the same mistake twice. The result is the ineffable Twaddle which now passes through the "full, clear, concise and exact terms" in required by law. The courts simply do not require clarity and punished when it appears.
On a related topic, why are still the rule without regard to patent claim should be a single sentence? (And Yes, I am aware of that is supposed to be the object of a sentence, beginning "claim...") no would be far better to a patent owner simply say paragraph, as "my invention is this"? This includes. Does not include. The technique that has this State is different. Do you believe that these be equivalent.? "? Why insists in the Office of patents in a dark probably ceased to make little sense once was always adopted rule has left me baffled.?
沒有留言:
張貼留言