Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt
with at the present time.
Art

Art,

I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say this
view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience.

73,
Chip N1IR

Chip, I have no problem with that, but the PTO has changed in the last few
years in how it does things
I read an article a few days ago where companies have gone into their
basements to review
old and forgotten patents as litigation between various companies has
proved to be a cash cow
for some when reviewing the grammer of patents (claims) and activities of
other companies in a grammatical sense.
You should also note that the Justice Department.has added elevated
importance( strength) to grammer of claims
in a attempt to curb increasing litigation against the P.T.O......... So
things are a changing.
I believe this to be a consequence of the PTO increasing dependence upon the
grammer of the claims rather than
the contents as a whole. Remember, lawyers and other reptiles can debate
for hours as to what
the definition of "is:":... is, in a grammatical sense. where-as old
english law established the original INTENT
as the primary definition .
This difference is why the U,S. has a huge playground for its increasing
lawyer population as its politicians
do not seek prior legal aid regarding the blend of ":grammer" and "intent"
when making laws. which
the rest of the World does

Art


"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are
dealt
with at the present time.
Art

Art,

I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say
this
view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience.

73,
Chip N1IR