Art Unwin wrote:

There fore isnt it just the claims that count as long as information
is provided in the body
to justify it. I could claim in the body that an antenna described
requires only a small battery to work the world and use that in the
claim. Whether it is true or not cannot be determined by the examiner
and the inventor does not now need to present a sample.

That's were having an expert write your patent matters. Depending upon
how the application was written, such a claim could leave operating it
without a battery or with a large battery in the public domain
(outside the scope of the patent), and so on. Claims like that are best
left to advertising and not patents.

It is for the next inventer to claim a better mousetrap for economical
reasons that he sees where others think it has no valueand not worth
the effort. The initial inventor can lose all if he does not commence
with a commercial effort as ordained by the PTO

No, the inventor is not required to do anything with their patent. You can
sit on it for the rest of its life and do nothing. You are assuming that
one has to sell something to pay the mantainance fees. The total paid out
in parts at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years is under $4,000 for a small inventor
or company. That's $266 a year over 15 years, the approximate life of a
patent that takes 5 years from first invention/publication to approval.

I'm sorry that patent bombing is no longer a poor man's game. (filing lots
of patent applications and hoping one will pay off). However the rules of the
game changed, possibly for the better. If you are quick about it, you can file
a provisional patent and shop it around for the money to make a real patent
out of it, or sell it to professional investors.

Since the filing fee for a small inventor is $110, you can file one for
the cost in the US of dinner, a movie and a baby sitter.

The downside is if you fail to file, or fail to convert the provisional
patent into a real one before the year is out, you loose, as I did with
several inventions I wrote provisional patent applications from my blog
postings but was unable to file them.


No wonder the courts want to limit their involvement in patent cases
and why the rules were changes i.e. PTO being challenged by those who
preside over justice in cases that are challenged. It is for this very
reason that laws in other countries establish the intent of the law AT
THAT TIME so a judge presides only with the case at hand and not
challenge the political made laws .

The courts want to get out of it because it is a lose-lose situation for
everyone. If there were to be binding arbritation by experts, or just licensing
deals, everyone would be happy.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM