4 ms·
The term you're after is "reasonable experimentation." The idea is: if a "lab assistant" can determine the exact concentrations, temperatures, pressures, manuf
by AlbertCory 3y ago
The term you're after is "reasonable experimentation."
The idea is: if a "lab assistant" can determine the exact concentrations, temperatures, pressures, manufacturing steps, etc. then it is still an invention. In other words, it's ok if practicing it requires reasonable experimentation.
You might disagree with that, but that's what the law says.
- deckar01 3y agoThe USPTO page on enablement is filled with examples of hardware and software patents that were rejected, because of hand-waving generalization. There needs to be some accountability for approving these bogus patents. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html
- AlbertCory 3y agoActually, no. Reexamination requests are based on 102 and 103, not 112. But yeah: accountability. The PTO makes money by granting them, and then makes more by hearing the challenges to them. Edit: I forgot to mention that the PTO runs a profit, last I checked. The government takes it, so they don't get to use it for improvement.