On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:14:17 AM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:   
   > On 01/21/2014 08:18 AM, haitic11@gmail.com wrote:   
   >    
   > > On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:10:33 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:   
   >    
   > >> On 01/20/2014 01:05 PM, haiticmail.com wrote:   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> One source of technical information is to read patents. Now that   
   >    
   > >>> we   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> are on "first to file," rather than "first to invent," the   
   >    
   > >>> patent   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> record gives a pretty good account of where the technology   
   >    
   > >>> stands in   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> various practical areas. (I'm adding a few pointers at the end   
   >    
   > >>> to   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> search techniques.)   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> My question is the following. In non-invasive blood testers, it   
   >    
   > >>> is   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> common to modulate the blood flow or track the heart beat to get   
   >    
   > >>> a   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> signal. This ac signal can be detected from the background noise   
   >    
   > >>> via   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> locking on to it.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> So I saw this language in a patent: (roughly) "For a narrow   
   >    
   > >>> spectral   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> band, the extinction coefficient varies with the blood flow   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> changes."   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> Well, if this is a pulse ox or something like that, the extinction   
   >    
   > >> of   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> the tissue as a whole does go up and down.  Part of that effect   
   >    
   > >> will be   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> due to the average extinction coefficient of the tissue (there's   
   >    
   > >> more   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> blood there at some times than others) and some to the mechanical   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> expansion and contraction due to the pulse.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> A physicist inside me said, "No it doesn't, unless you have   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> non-linear optics. The extinction coefficient is an inherent   
   >    
   > >>> property   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> of a substance in solution. I think the patent lawyer meant "The   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> extinction varies."   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> So if I am right, we have a situation where the wording of the   
   >    
   > >>> claim   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> is scientifically unsound, but from the description, the   
   >    
   > >>> inventors   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> can say, "Well, you know what I mean."   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> Huh? I have been trained that the claims are the legal heart of   
   >    
   > >>> the   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> patent, and if the claim is not worded in a sound scientific   
   >    
   > >>> manner,   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> does this invalidate the patent?   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> Patents are legal documents, like contracts, and they grant the   
   >    
   > >> patentee   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> a very strong property right: the ability to prohibit anyone else   
   >    
   > >> from   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> practicing the patent in the USA.   Once issued, there's a very   
   >    
   > >> strong   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> presumption in law that the patent is valid.  Killing one isn't at   
   >    
   > >> all   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> impossible, but there's a definite tilt in the playing field once   
   >    
   > >> the   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> examiner signs off on it.    That's one reason that the first   
   >    
   > >> avenue of   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> attack is often to ask for the patent to be reexamined.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> Until recently, reexams were inexpensive and more like patent   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> prosecution, but I'm told that they're now more like litigation.   
   >    
   > >> (I've   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> just finished the third of three reexams in a case involving the   
   >    
   > >> user   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> interface of the Nintendo Wii, so I'm sort of up on this.)   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> Of course, as a scientist or whatever I am, I would say yes. But   
   >    
   > >>> when   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> lawyers are afoot, anything can happen.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> As a thought experiment, suppose you shoot a patent torpedo at   
   >    
   > >>> this   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> claim and claim a device whose "extinction" varies, unlike   
   >    
   > >>> another   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> patent whose "extinction coefficient" varies?   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> I seem to remember, on tests in school, if I gave the wrong   
   >    
   > >>> answer, I   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> could not say, "Well you know what I meant."   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> The whole issue of claim construction is involved.  It turns out   
   >    
   > >> that   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> the meaning of claim terms is also a matter of law.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> To make this more confusing, the patent writer conflates   
   >    
   > >>> extinction   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> coefficient in the description text by saying he means   
   >    
   > >>> essentially   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> "extinction" or absorption.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>> ???  How would you rule? JB   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> It's pretty clear that what's in view is total extinction, but a   
   >    
   > >> minor error in the mechanism probably won't invalidate the claim.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> Besides, the patentee can always file a continuation, and get new   
   >    
   > >> claims on the same old specification. But I'm not a lawyer.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > >   
   >    
   > > Thanks Phil. Yes, they can file a continuation, as long as new   
   >    
   > > inventors haven't worked on the invention. (or so I understand.) I   
   >    
   > > believe you are right in the main. Yet, when we say the moon is made   
   >    
   > > from blue cheese, then we might hit a limit at some point? If I have   
   >    
   > > the time, I may call the examiner and get his opinion, if he is still   
   >    
   > > available. What you ay about the specific languaging of claims I will   
   >    
   > > bring up. I bet every art class has their terminology, and it's   
   >    
   > > probably embedded in the art class definition as well as issued   
   >    
   > > patents. Say, you are able to maneuver concepts around pretty well,   
   >    
   > > maybe you missed your calling? :) jb   
   >    
   > >   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Nah, the wife and I raised three lawyers of the barrack-room variety,   
   >    
   > and we're all argued out.  ;)   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > I have five or six expert witness cases going at the moment, and   
   >    
   > that's enough for anybody, I think.   They use a different part of the   
   >    
   > brain from engineering, and pay a bit better as well, but not enough for   
   >    
   > me to want them as an exclusive diet.  I had to turn down a case at the   
   >    
   > International Trade Commission last fall.  It would have been   
   >    
   > interesting from a legal point of view, but the technology was boring   
   >    
   > and it would have eaten me alive for nine months or a year.  (ITC cases   
   >    
   > have been described as "a district court on     
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)