From: BogusID@YesItIs.com   
      
   "Whata Fool"  wrote in message   
   news:rpjed35hfnk600uv7adon7td0b6ii3r2nb@4ax.com...   
   > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:27:58 -0700, "BogusID"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>"Whata Fool"  wrote in message   
   >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:41:28 -0000, dhegdk1763@pookmail.com wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Now, after so many years, I feel suddenly just tired to go on looking   
   >>>>for you unsuccessfully.   
   >>>   
   >>>          Don't give up,  very few people really care.   
   >>>   
   >>> ebay  330160736311   
   >>   
   >>Amusing eBay patent sale reference!   
   >>   
   >>I thought it was *bad* to refer to previous design works of others   
   >>(Jenkins,   
   >>White, Howard...), since that builds upon a previous invention casting   
   >>possible doubt on the originality of the work?   
   >   
   >         Most references listed in patents are those cited by the   
   > examiner, not the inventor.   
   >   
   >         In this case, the parent application serial number precedes   
   > the F-117 application serial number by two months, in such new   
   > technology, references cited by the examiner are more to allow   
   > the inventor to deny pertinence, defining the art better.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   I didn't know an examiner could modify the body of submitted text within a   
   patent?   
   It seems that an examiners addendum with page/line references would be more   
   appropriate.   
   Copyrights are much easier, my first patent is in process now ... my what a   
   price difference between the two!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)