3 ms·
No, that is not "basically" what is patented here. You have to read the whole claim. And if a claim refers back to an earlier claim as a dependent ("the apparat
by monochromatic 14y ago
No, that is not "basically" what is patented here. You have to read the whole claim. And if a claim refers back to an earlier claim as a dependent ("the apparatus of claim x, further comprising...") then it also incorporates all of the limitations of that earlier claim.
- mikegioia 14y agoThen what is being patented here? You're guilty of the same vacuous response you accuse elorant of.
- monochromatic 14y agoMine was at least correct though. Posting from my phone, so you'll excuse me for not trying to parse out the claims.
- mikegioia 14y agoFair enough :)