On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:00:14 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 03:24 PM, 2011@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 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:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > About the pressure affecting the extinction coefficient, and the
>
> > claim specifying that. Now you recall the ext coeff, the imaginary
>
> > part of the refractive index, is a property of the material. I've
>
> > come up with a number of claims I intend to file:
>
> >
>
> > -I claim to change the molecular weight of water... (consists of
>
> > boiling water, in liquid form, H2O is associated with 5-15 other
>
> > H2O's - boiling removes that.)
>
> >
>
> > -I claim an anti gravity device that modifies the gravitational
>
> > constant. (actually a pogo stick, where I get a moment of
>
> > weightlessness.)
>
> >
>
> > -I claim to modify the spectral properties of blood. (just look at
>
> > blood through a filter. Seeing is believing.)
>
> >
>
> > You and I know what the patentees "meant." But the attorney use the
>
> > term "extinction coefficient" to describe something that is
>
> > manipulated by changing the dimensions of the sample. I suspect that
>
> > the attorney was changing the wording so that prior art would not
>
> > conflict.
>
> >
>
> > I'm already counting my billions from being able to change properties
>
> > of matter...
>
> >
>
>
>
> Far be it from me to imply that hair splitting is out of place in a
>
> legal context--it's a big part of what lawyers do for a living--but a
>
> court would be very unlikely to agree with those ones, I think.
>
>
>
> Claim terms are supposed to be interpreted according to their "plain and
>
> ordinary meaning" unless that is impossible for one reason or another,
>
> or the patentee has explicitly redefined the term to give it a special
>
> meaning. An interpretation that renders the claim nonsensical will
>
> generally be rejected, because the presumption is that both the patentee
>
> and the examiner knew what it meant.
>
>
>
> But once again, I'm not a lawyer.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
>
> Principal Consultant
>
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
>
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
>
>
> 160 North State Road #203
>
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
>
>
>
> hobbs at electrooptical dot net
>
> http://electrooptical.net
Um - where the bear comes out of the woods here - I suspect there is 'another'
patent which presents the effect as simple "absorption," and there was an
interference problem that the legal beagle and the examiner worked out.
There are two arguments against this behavior. First, the average person must
be able to understand the claims, so as to know whether they are in violation
as sellers. The second argument is that, if you are claiming to influence an
inherent property of
matter, then, right or wrong, you are trying to patent a natural law. Finally,
of course, my gut says they are involved in shenanigans to solve an
interference problem.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
