Comments on: Federal Circuit: “Injected Molded” limitation imparts structure (although we can’t define what structure) America's leading patent law blog Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:42:17 +0000 Don’t you just love his little “well anon said something so I am going to take the opposite position” reflex that Malcolm (oh so often) engages in?

Even here on this topic, where he gets his “claim objective structure” OPTIONAL wish, he immediately reacted against the patentee.

His cognitive dissonance runs deep…

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:38:27 +0000 I responded to your rather bland “And this happens routinely” in response to the quote from the guy above.

What you said may be a “factual statement,” but it is one that misses the point here. I comment that you may want to stop a second and consider what that missed point may be.

By: 6 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:27:54 +0000 “It’s totally obvious in this context. There is no question about that, at least not a serious one that I’ve seen anyone attempt to raise.”

I will raise it. If they don’t have a piece o art showing such, it’ll probably be deemed non-obvious and be allowed. Follow up on the case to watch it get allowed.

By: 6 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:26:37 +0000 Fillers are also structural details tardvictimMM. They’re literally little pieces of material in the structure.

By: 6 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:25:32 +0000 Geometries are structural tardvictimMM.

By: 6 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:24:23 +0000 In most arts like this if they can’t find the material being used in a similar situation you’ll probably get the claim allowed MM. Putting an “old material” to use in a new field will quite often get you an allowed claim. Materials science has innovations too bruhzinsky.

By: 6 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:19:35 +0000 I’m not sure why you’re responding to me here, you seem to have quoted the guy above. I just said that people wanting to claim injection molded parts never try to do what he suggests in real life, and claiming such is routine. What I said is a factual statement, and nothing about it is ironic and it isn’t up for further discussion so I’m not sure what you’re even saying in your response.

By: anon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:42 +0000 complex geometries is…


and not structural?

What “definition” of “structure” are YOU using?

By: MM Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:27:32 +0000 e.g., a continuously and unitarily formed part (integrally formed would have a different meaning), preferably having the stress, flex and other physical characteristics typical of an injection molded part.

[eye roll]

The problem here is that substituting a material used to make part of an apparatus with a known material with known desirable properties is not “innovating.” It’s an obvious variation, and it’s the kind of obvious that you can’t overcome with “secondary factors” because there aren’t any.

By: MM Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:23:19 +0000 Injection molding does provide special structural properties.

Name them.

You can do more complex geometries with injection molding.

That’s not structure, it’s a functional capability. I can do more complex geometries on clay with my hand than with I can with a hammer. Says nothing about the structure of the clay.

With fillers, you can increase the strength of material.

Again: not structure.

Additionally, you can use multiple types of plastic together.

Not structure. That’s function.

One can question the obviousness of using such a process.

It’s totally obvious in this context. There is no question about that, at least not a serious one that I’ve seen anyone attempt to raise.

there should be no question as to the whether this results in a structural difference. You may need a microscope and/or testing equipment to verify a structural different

Which is why the system frowns upon this kind of game-playing and which is why “injection molded” is a product-by-process limitation.