spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: patenting SPF

2004-01-31 21:36:50


On Sunday 01 February 2004 2:10 am, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
We don't have to add claims to a patent, we might be able 
to just add
description. It would still count as prior art and it would 
still provoke an
interference claim.

Why not just file a statutory disclosure?

We could try, do they bother to read them?

Come to that we know they don't read the damn patents. I know of at least
one case that got to (expensive) littigation  based on a patent with a first
claim identical to one issued three years earlier.

We might as well get a bunch of hippies, circle the USPTO and try to
levitate it for all the good anything will do.

                Phill

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>