Weekly Worthless Patent

Prev Page | Next Page | HiRes version | First Page | Last Page | Text@USPTO* | Competitors*

Device for investigating materials

Study the main drawing. Read the main claim. Is there a disconnect? It sure looks like it to me. And all the other claims depend on Claim 1. What's the disconnect? The claim specifies that all the smarts "for discriminating the pulse from interfering pulses" be "integrated in a unitary one-piece structure" with the (at least one) sensor. The readout box might have it's own smarts, of course,

And, in fact, an examination of the file wrapper (which you can do yourself online at portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) shows that the "one-piece" and "unitary" terminology were actually introduced during the patent prosecution, they do not appear in the patent specification. And the applicant dropped terminology to allow non-one-piece as part of their "invention." Given this new terminology and narrowing the patent holder will be very hard pressed if they ever have to go to court to show that their initial patent application even described their "invention."

And further, just as an aside, this patent's file wrapper shows two classic Examiner "wins." First they demand that "one-piece" be added to further define "unitary" (it's not clear the meaning was changed at all). Second they insisted that a whereby clause be added---then when that was added insisted that they couldn't approve the claim without "further consideration and/or search" thus forcing a Request for Continued Examination---with a new fee. Generally folks capitulate and pay the fee because the fight of an appeal just isn't worth it.

Prev Page | Next Page | HiRes version | First Page | Last Page | Text@USPTO* | Competitors*

*At the USPTO web site you need a .tiff viewer plug-in to view images. See www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm for info. Back to Top.