The chart below shows the number of utility patents issued each quarter with data through August 2014 (2014 Q3 uses an estimate for September 2014). You will note that the number of patents issuing continues to rise.
The USPTO issues new patents each week on Tuesdays morning. Of the top-twenty weeks with the most issued patents on record, all twenty occurred so far in 2014 (with one third of the year still remaining).
It seems to me that claims are getting to issue, even though they are not clear. I wonder why that is.
I think it is because the courts tell the USPTO what is fit to issue, and unless the claim is insolubly ambiguous, it is fit to issue. That strikes me as unfortunate.
It is all very well for a judge to find a claim in dispute clear enough, after having had the assistance of learned counsel taking the court all the way through the PTO wrapper. But that doesn’t help the public, faced with an issued patent and struggling to make sense of the claim. It doesn’t do much for the opinion of persons skilled in the art on the usefulness of the patent system, when they are asked to opine on what the patent specification in view means to them.
Invoking the file wrapper history has pernicious aspects as well as helpful ones. That it can free up the path to early issue might not be altogether a good Thing though.
Where is this strawman that unclear claims are there in part because file wrapper invoking is an aspect of freeing the path to an early issue?
What early issue are you on about?
It takes time to debate issues of definiteness and written description. The more such time taken, the greater the pendency and the longer it takes, to get to issue. If issues of definiteness and written description could somehow be sidelined, the PTO could get more cases quickly through to issue, and thereby satisfy its critics.
Can they be sidelined? I think they can, by requiring the interested public to scour the entire wrapper, every time it wants to gather an inkling of what any particular issued claim actually means. Compliment! Giving the customer work that, hitherto, the Service Provider itself performed, is a very modern way to manage a workload
It is my experience at the EPO that prompts me to raise the issue. Europe insists that patents to issue be clear, without having to turn to the wrapper. That requirement does tend to put stresses on the pre-issue exam debate, and typically lengthens it. But it’s worth it.
It appears that my reply was too brusque – but in essence, MaxDrei, your supposition is unfounded. The fact that the matter is even in the wrapper at all means that the matter has been gone through.
You raise a scare that is not there – in colloquial terms, this falls under the categorization of FUD.
I’d like to see that chart with the tops of the lines in a different color showing what percentage of those were software patents. It would be interesting to see the change over time as we became a society more invested in computing.
Easy, but Can you define “software patents.”
Why define something when you can use Malcolm’s nose?
Can you define “software patents.”
As a proxy, you can use computer-related patents. If so, you can use any patent issued in Tech Centers 2100 (“Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security”), 2400 (“Computer Networks, Multiplex communication, Video Distribution, and Security”), and 2600 (“Communications”). I would also include anything in 3620, 3680, and 3690 (“Electronic Commerce”).
That should capture the vast majority of computer-related patents.
Whew, good thing the question was not about business method patents…
😉
How about U.S. Patent No. 8,804,839?
Is this a “computer-related” patent? If so, why? It doesn’t recite a computer, or in fact any type of embodiment. It certainly recites a method that can be programmed as software, or can be implemented as a circuit. But it might not be used in a computer with a processor – might just be used in a hardware encoder, as part of a data transmission process – i.e., basic signal processing.
Malcolm knows them when he sees them
Group 1: Software.
Why not just list all patents that have claims with “programmed” or “computer readable” in an independent claim.
Group 2.
Functional claiming.
Try “configured to,” “adapted to,” “so that.”
Then see how many in group 1 are in group 2.
The PTO should stop issuing all such patents pending a review.
Neddles, functional claiming is in mechanical patents too.
Never mind that the use of functional language in claims is allowed under law (and allowed in more than just 112(f))…
Not only is it allowed it is the only rational way to claim many inventions.
The little anti twerps won’t ever deal with a real example with functional claiming because they rely on the ignorance of the Google judges and Shadow Director Lee.
That’s simply not going to happen:
“Defining something… by what it does rather than what it is… in our view,there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of such a technique in drafting patent claims.” In re Swinehart (CCPA 1971).
“As noted by the court in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 160 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected solely because of the type of language used to define the subject matter for which patent protection is sought.” (MPEP 2173.01)
“A patent applicant is free to recite feature of an apparatus either structurally or functionally.” In re Schreiber (CAFC 1997).
“Claims using relative terms such as… ‘adapted to’ are insolubly ambiguous only if they provide no guidance to those skilled in the art as to teh scope of that requirement.” Power-one, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc. (CAFC 2010), citing Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. (CAFC 2005).
“Of those decisions, 376 decisions included “configured to” language in at least one feature that was argued by the Appellant and, thus, addressed by the Board. In 344 decisions (91%), the Board gave full weight to the features following the “configured to” language. In 18 decisions (5%), the Board gave the features reduced weight by usually stating that “configured to” is an intended use and the prior art must merely be “capable of” performing the recited features. In 14 decisions (4%), the Board gave no patentable weight to the features by usually stating that the phrase does not further distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.” ( link to patentlyo.com )
In 18 decisions (5%), the Board gave the features reduced weight by usually stating that “configured to” is an intended use and the prior art must merely be “capable of” performing the recited features.
How many of those decisions were written by Thu Dang? I suspect an unusually high proportion. APJ Dang has apparently never heard of Typhoon Touch or Nazomi v. Nokia.
Dennis — you’ve got the data. We just need the application numbers.
Those are some incredibly cr ppy cases, David. Poorly reasone garbage stretched thin and ripe for the trash heap. Enjoy it while you can, grab that cash with both hands cuz the salad days of b.s coddling and pretending you were born yesterday are coming to a close.
Hindsight Milly!
the salad days of b.s coddling and pretending you were born yesterday are coming to a close.
You were saying that 5 years ago, and you’ll be saying it 5 years from now. Some things never change …
David, it is interesting, don’t you think, just how the Federal Circuit seems to think that it can totally ignore Supreme Court case law with impunity?
Functional language at the point of novelty has been held by the Supreme Court to be indefinite, and to violate both written description and enablement. The first case on point is none other than O’Reilly v. Morse, continuing with Perkins Glue, General Electric v. Wabash Appliance, United Carbon, and Halliburton.
So it is simply not true that a inventor may claim his invention functionally. It never has been. He might claim old elements functionally. But he cannot claim the invention functionally. And that is when the functional language occurs at the exact point of novelty. See, Faulkner v. Gibbs.
1952 Act and what Congress says about the use of language that is functional easily trumps the Court and the cases you cite to Ned (at the very least, such trumps the version of Ned-IMHO-caselaw from those cases).
The CRP-run away from valid counterpoints-CRP again merry-go-round in full motion yet again from you Ned.
PS: the invention is still the claim as a whole, and your use of PON here is still a canard.
the invention is still the claim as a whole
All that means is that you can’t shove aside a claim element without an explanation as to why the element is b.s.
Otherwise we’d see more claims like the claim that Yawnboy proposed the other day, e.g., claims that recite “wherein the improvement over the prior art is technological” or “wherein the claim is non-obvious”. You know, stuff that some sleezeball mouthbreathing lawyer might try to pawn off on a naive client.
You’re familiar with that sort of thing, aren’t you, Billy? Of course you are.
Okay, Ned, let’s look at the claim at issue in each of your cases:
O’Reilly v. Morse (1854)
Claim at issue: “The use of the motive power of electro-magnetism, however developed for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at any distances.”
Holland Furniture v. Perkins Glue (1928)
Claim at issue: “Any process of making glue, excepting where the starch or starchy product or carbohydrate subjected to the process, is degenerated to the extent described [in the patent], whereby the process results in the good as animal glue described.”
General Electric v. Wabash Appliance (1938)
Claim at issue: “A drawn filament for electric incandescent lamps or other devices, composed substantially of tungsten and made up mainly of a number of comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device.”
United Carbon v. Binney and Smith (1942)
“Substantially pure carbon black in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded, smooth aggregate having a spongy or porous interior.”
Halliburton v. Walker (1946)
Claim at issue: “In an apparatus for determining the location of an obstruction in a well… having therein… means associated with said pressure responsive device for tuning said receiving means to the frequency of echoes from the tubing collars of said tubing sections to clearly distinguish the echoes from said couplings from each other.”
In all of these cases, the claim at issue recited a property or result, i.e., the thing achieved by the process or component. However, claiming a step or component according to what it does, i.e., its function, is different from claiming it according to what it achieves, i.e., its result.
===
Let’s do some A/B testing:
* Functional claim (eligible): “A method of curing rubber, comprising: using a computer to estimate curing using the Arrhenius equation; and opening the boiler when the curing reaches a desired degree.”
* Result-oriented claim (ineligible): “A method of curing rubber, comprising: controlling a boiler using the Arrhenius equation to control the boiler with greater precision.”
* Functional claim language (eligible): “A composition comprising: 80% calcium bicarbonate and 20% sodium chloride.”
* Result-oriented claim (ineligible): “A composition comprising: a solution of calcium bicarbonate and sodium chloride that exhibits a boiling point above 150 C.”
* Functional claim (eligible): “A method of producing a chemical, comprising: passing a contaminated sample of the chemical through a filter having pores having a pore size of 12 nanometers.”
* Result-oriented claim (ineligible): “A method of producing a chemical, comprising: using any process to remove, from a contaminated sample of the chemical, impurities larger than 12 nanometers.”
* Functional claim (eligible): “A method of compressing data, comprising: identifying an element occurring at least twice; and replacing the element in the data with a symbol; and storing in the data an association of the element with the symbol.”
* Result-oriented claim (ineligible): “A method of compressing data by removing repeating elements to produce a smaller data set that can be reconstructed without data loss.”
Do you see the difference? Do you understand that in all of the cases that you routinely cite, the (C|c)ourt condemns claim language that is oriented toward the result?
===
Finally, it’s worth noting that every case that you have cited:
(1) Predates the 1952 Patent Act;
(2) Predates the era of modern computing; and
(3) Predates the entire set of tumultuous 101 case law, dating back to Gottschalk v. Benson.
Your arguments about a categorical restriction on functional language are unsupported by any case law that does not exhibit these deficiencies. This is why your position cannot be taken seriously.
David Stein: * Functional claim language (eligible): “A composition comprising: 80% calcium bicarbonate and 20% sodium chloride.”
If you think that is functional claim language, David, then you are even more clueless than I thought, which is saying a lot.
claiming a …component according to what it does, i.e., its function, is different from claiming it according to what it achieves, i.e., its result.
In fact it’s pretty much the same issue and the PTO has a longstanding practice (inconsistently applied of course) of ignoring limitations that recite “results” when evaluating claims that fail to recite any objective structural differences between the claimed apparatus/composition and the prior art. That’s as it should be. 101 does not permit the patenting of new “functionalities.”
The issues raised by functional claiming in method claims are somewhat different because, presumably, the recited steps themselves are “functional” … otherwise why recite them? But again, a claim that recites only old steps followed by some new result (or preceded by a new function recited in an otherwise weightless preamble) is a j nk claim, and quintessentially so.
David, in a method claim, ACTS are not functional. SO THAT is. Most of the “ineligible” method claims you list are of the “so that” variety.
With apparatus, describing its structure in terms of what it does is functional.
Regarding ’52, you have to consider the introduction of 112(f) that seemingly authorized functional claiming. That was what the CCPA and the Federal Circuit thought. But the Supreme Court has never weighed in.
And, you better believe that O’Reilly v. Morse is still good law.
“Regarding ’52, you have to consider the introduction of 112(f) that seemingly authorized functional claiming”
WRONG Ned – the use of functional terms is allowed in more than just 112(f).
You know this. I have shown you case law discussing it (In re Orthokinetics for example.
Stop dissembling on these material points of law.
Wait, what? “Acts” are not “functional?”
In the data compression claim above (“A method of compressing data, comprising: identifying an element occurring at least twice; and replacing the element in the data with a symbol; and storing in the data an association of the element with the symbol”) – are you honestly taking the position that the steps here aren’t recited using “functional language?” If they’re not recited “functionally,” then do you consider them “structural?” And what is the “structure” recited there?
The language of 112(f), and its predecessor 112p6, is clear: “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.”
It seems like you’re hoping that the Supreme Court would “weigh in” by declaring that they don’t like this provision and will not apply it – i.e., that the Supreme Court would hold that an element MAY NOT be expressed as a means for performing a function without reciting the structure.
If that’s your hope… then I can only reference the basic principle of statutory construction that courts (including the Court) cannot interpret a statute in a manner that directly conflicts with its plain language and meaning.
David, 112(f) has never been construed by the Supreme Court and I think the Feds are misapplying it.
For one, Frederico believed that surrounding a single means claim with nominal elements was not within the statute. What did he mean by this? One of the things he could’ve meant that is if everything in the claim is old but the one element and there is no new cooperation among the new and the old, then essentially the claim is to a single means and it is not authorized by statute.
Also, Frederico believed that the new statute was not inconsistent with Halliburton except perhaps to the extent that it authorized the use of means plus function in “new combination” claims because you have to consider is remarks about single means claims.
Another problem I have with respect to the Federal Circuit interpretation of section 112(f) is its nonliberal interpretation of corresponding structure and equivalents with respect to old elements. Prior to ’52, when an old element was claimed functionally, almost anything that could fulfill the function in the combination was considered to be an equivalent. The Federal Circuit however seems to like to construe equivalents very narrowly regardless of whether or not an old element is being claimed.
David Stein,
In the data compression claim above (“A method of compressing data, comprising: identifying an element occurring at least twice; and replacing the element in the data with a symbol; and storing in the data an association of the element with the symbol”) – are you honestly taking the position that the steps here aren’t recited using “functional language?” If they’re not recited “functionally,” then do you consider them “structural?” And what is the “structure” recited there?
David, methods by definition use old apparatus. The apparatus is contextual, not the invention.
A method or process consists of one or more acts. An act is by definition an action.
In a process claim, a statement that X does something is an Act. Such is not “functional” within the meaning of the law.
Doing something to achieve a result is however “functional” withing the doctrine.
“So that.”
Ned, these definitions that you’re using continue to get more and more weird.
Let me explain why your definitions are odd:
(1) “A method, comprising: storing data on a medium.”
That, to you, is not “functional language.” It’s also not “structural,” which raises a problem since, in the law of claim drafting, every limitation is either “structural” or “functional.” Instead, you call it an “act,” which you define as an “action.”
(2) “An apparatus, comprising: a storage driver that stores data on a medium.” Suddenly, this is now “functional language,” because the exact same words are used in an apparatus claim.
(3) “An apparatus, comprising: a storage driver and a medium, wherein data ends up being stored on the medium.” That is also “functional language.” And irrespective of the fact that (2) recites an action performed by the storage driver and (3) simply recites a result that is somehow achieved, you view both (2) and (3) as providing the type of “functional language” that cases like GE and Halliburton prohibit.
Do I understand your position correctly?
David, just to be clear, the “kind” of claim to which the Supreme Court objected were claims that were functional at the point-of-novelty. The Supreme Court has not condemned claims having functional language that is descriptive in nature or defines old terms in terms of functional language so long as they are not otherwise indefinite.
“A storage driver that stores data on a medium” as part of a apparatus claim could be describing an old element. There is no fundamental problem with such a claim element in the combination claimed. The problem occurs when one is trying to claim novel structure in terms of what it does rather than what it is.
When speaking of method claims instead, the apparatus is assumed to be old. One defines a method by a series of acts. However even method claims can be functional-at-the-point-of-novelty if instead of defining an act, the claim claims a result regardless of the act.
But circling back, it is totally acceptable to use functional language in apparatus claims to describe old elements or further describe structural elements. The Supreme Court only condemned functional language at the point of novelty to claim new structure, not in terms of what it is, but in terms of what it does.
Ned,
Just to be clear, the version you are using of PON is a canard.
Use the term appropriately please.
Thanks David! Your posts are always welcome.
I’d like to the chart with the tops of the lines with different color for patent I don’t like.
Billy, please tell everyone how you would advise a client who came to you with an “innovation” about a “new display”, where the only thing “new” about this “display” is (wait for it) the information being displayed.
Please tell everyone how much you’d charge for preparing and prosecuting these “display” claims.
I’m really looking forward to your answer, Mr. “Ethics”.
nice moving goalpost made of straw – how do you do that and qq so much at the same time?
It’s a miracle!
Run, Billy, run!
Except for the fact that I am not running, your post might have been funny.
Fishsticks looks like we are catching up from the 2003-2009 slump
Don’t forget about the even bigger “slump” from 1850 to 1980!
Too funny.
It’s really not that funny at all Malcolm, as it has been pointed out to you previously (I know this because I was the one that pointed it to you): that “slump period is directly tied to the Office attempts to Reject its way out of the growing workload.
But then again, you are one that attempted to deny that the Reject-Reject-Reject era ever actually happened…
the growing workload
Do you mean the unprecedented onslaught of j nk application filings, Billy?
Whatever.
(Oh, and also previously told to you was the little fact that the Reject-Reject-Reject era was NOT limited to one art unit – like you are attempting to dissemble)
Faster than an IPR, more powerful than a computer brain, able to leap steps of logic with a single phrase, it’s Hindsight Milly. Able to write a claim to any invention that was with a single post. Beloved by Ned.
Hindsight Milly,”Infringers have no need for fear. Hindsight Milly is here!”
top-twenty weeks with the most issued patents on record, all twenty occurred so far in 2014
Surely future historians will look back upon 2014 as the scientific renaissance that the numbers tell us it must be.
Some normalizations would be great. Here are a few possibilities:
It should be normalized to the number of constitutional, statutory, non-obvious, enabled, described and definite inventions that were issued in that period. That’s the only graph that matters. I suspect that graph would be more interesting.
Looks like about 85k, but that’s just a guess based on the graph. Glad I could help.
Looks like about 85k, but that’s just a guess based on the graph. Glad I could help.
Oh, good. Then we can retire the federal circuit’s involvement completely. I didn’t know the office had a 100% accuracy record.
Given that the federal circuit’s involvement runs at afar less than 2% of all active patents, I am glad that you are glad (regardless of any actual accuracy rate, right?).
Given that the federal circuit’s involvement runs at afar less than 2% of all active patents
Hahaha, and I suppose you draw the conclusion that because they uphold what? About half of the patents they see that 99% of the patents out there are valid? Or that the other 98% don’t modify their behavior based on the outcome of the 2% of cases?
“What you suppose” is beyond anybody’s sane guess Random. The use of the word regardless kind of indicates that the amount of patents before the court is such a small number that your attempted point of humor falls rather flat.
You would have been better off making fun of yourself as an examiner for letting such patents get to the courts in the first place, but admitting that you aren’t doing your Fn job kind of takes the zing out of any of the jokes you might tell, doesn’t it?
You would have been better off making fun of yourself as an examiner for letting such patents get to the courts in the first place, but admitting that you aren’t doing your Fn job kind of takes the zing out of any of the jokes you might tell, doesn’t it?
Ha! In every other case you’d argue that I’m ridiculous in rejecting too much, but here I must be the one letting bad patents issue. I am the only one who works here, so you must be right.
You’re funny today.
I argue that you don’t know what the F you are talking about.
You still don’t.
Random doesn’t even know enough to know that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. But, he is friends with Hindsight Milly.
And Ned thinks Random is just swell.
….why?
Isn’t more data better? Why do you want to suppress the more data that will (in the best Paul Harvey tones) tell the rest of the story?
Isn’t more data better? Why do you want to suppress the more data that will (in the best Paul Harvey tones) tell the rest of the story?
I’d love more evidence for arguments either way. What’s the standard for admitting evidence again, oh legally minded one?
It’s basic statistics that you’re going to come to wrong conclusions when you normalize for only one or two variables in a multivariable system because the other variables confound the result. Especially when you can’t tell whether those variables are dependent or not.
The graph shows patents per year. You want to normalize it to non-continuations per year, fine. But if you want to comment on that difference because you think that “tells the rest of the story” you’re scientifically mistaken. It tells so little to begin with, don’t strip it of whatever meaning it has.
What has the standard for admitting evidence have to do with having more data from Prof. Crouch?
LOL – you are going to now start preaching on multi-variate analysis? That you think that more data creates some type of scientific mistakes is quite hilarious already.
Let me grab some popcorn first.
What has the standard for admitting evidence have to do with having more data from Prof. Crouch?
I knew you’d step in it. Data shouldn’t be given to fact finders when the effect of supplying the data would be more prejudicial than probative. Irresponsible people don’t get to play with matches. You’re reaching for a match.
That you think that more data creates some type of scientific mistakes is quite hilarious already.
You’re not asking for “more data” you’re asking for a specific type of data in an effort to prove a particular hypothesis. You have an idea that ice cream prevents crime, so you’re asking only for the data on ice cream and crime. Sure enough you’re going to find an inverse correllation, and you’re going to conclude that ice cream prevents crime. Normalizing issuances with application filings, as it otherwise has no other probative value, is an attempt to justify the notion that issuances lead to more disclosures. That is simply not the case, for the same reason that ice cream doesn’t prevent crime.
Can I ask, if you don’t know law and you don’t know the scientific method, how is it you came to be on this board?
Given that the existing data has already been shown to have been misused by the anti-software blogs, I’d say that your argument suffers a fatal flaw.
Not that such is new, by the way.
“Can I ask, if you don’t know law and you don’t know the scientific method, how is it you came to be on this board?”
You can ask all you want as long as you realize that you are operating under some serious misguided ASSumptions about what I know, since I do know both law and the scientific method.
And no – read what I asked for – I asked for more data.
..and I have no idea where you are concocting the strawman that more issuances lead to more disclosures….
Are you high?
Billy’s funniest critique is that the graph is biased because it doesn’t show the number of rejections over the same time period. “Shame on you, Dennis!”
LOL
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Some of this morning’s sooper awesome patents:
1. A system for enhancing perception of a motor vehicle’s mark emblem, comprising: at least one mark emblem mounted on the exterior of a motor vehicle; … an electronic visual imaging device for displaying an image related to the at least one mark emblem; and a speed sensor and speed sensor switch for detecting whether a vehicle on which the system is mounted is moving at or below a selected speed limit. [the term “mark emblem” is meant the unique emblem on a particular make of motor vehicle that functions as a trademark]
Never mind the 101 problems raised by hinging patentability on “emblems” and displays “related” to the emblem. This j nk is anticipated by a car with a hood ornament, a dashboard displaying the emblem, and a cop with a radar gun. W t f???
8,823,531
1. An apparatus having an active cooling system, comprising:
electronic circuits; an enclosure for housing the electronic circuits;
a fan for blowing air through the enclosure; an orientation sensor for sensing a parameter indicative of an orientation of the fan; and
logic configured to determine, based on the parameter sensed by the orientation sensor, whether a direction of an airflow induced by the fan is within a predefined range of a direction of buoyant airflow, the logic further configured to transmit a notification signal indicating whether the direction of the airflow induced by the fan is within the predefined range.
Functionally claimed j nk o f the lowest order. Love the use of the term “logic”, though. An apparatus that comprises “logic.” Riiiiight. Sometimes the truth just leaks out. I wonder why they stopped with this “buoyant” airflow business. Why not a fan comprising “logic” that tells me when I’m missing the tennis semifinals, or that tells my grandma when to sell her Peanut the Elephant beanie baby for maximum profit?
8,823,737
1. A medical image display comprising:
a first region displaying a medical image of a heart and having a color coded overlay displayed on the medical image of the heart, the color coded overlay representative of strain values; and
a second region displaying non-image data related to the medical image of the heart displayed in the first region, the non-image data color coded to associate the non-image data with the color coded overlay, the non-image data plotted on a graph as a function of time.
Wow. Anybody still want to pretend that people aren’t trying to protect information with patents? Try to believe that incredible piece of j nk got out of the PTO. Holy. Freaking. Crap.
This took 5 minutes of browsing. I’m cherry-picking the short claims but there’s plenty of long-winded garbage that’s just as vapid. Check out 8,823,793 for a “System and Method of Performing Security Tasks” patent that is one of many reams of examples of functionally-claimed information processing gar bage.
Love the use of the term “logic”, though. An apparatus that comprises “logic.” Riiiiight.
Um, yes. From Merriam-Webster: logic: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves. Those look like elements of an apparatus.
Those look like elements of an apparatus.
I’ve no doubt that the “logic” refers to circuitry. I’ve also no doubt that a description of the structure of that circuity is completely absent from this “apparatus” claim. And I’ve no that this magical circuitry is the only novel feature of this remarkably “logical” fan.
I’ve no doubtthat this magical circuitry is the only novel feature of this remarkably “logical” fan.
Missed a word.
It’s pretty much only “magical” if you pretend that you can have new capabilities with the same “oldbox” and no changes whatsoever…
Oh wait, is this where you insert your canard about claims being in ONLY STRUCTURE mode….? Can we just jump to the point that you actually provide a legal citation for this belieb of yours?
/eye roll