From: Jeremy D. Selengut (selengut_at_nih.gov)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 11:44:13 PDT
>Begin 167:8 >----------- >The purpose of patents is to encourage future rules to build upon what is >already known. "If I can see further than others, it is because I have >stood on the shoulders of Giants" I believe it was said. Therefore, while >grabbing the whole of a patent is certainly wrong, it should be encouraged >to use part of a patent. To this end, it is required that all future >rules splice in exactly half of any patented phrase that appeared in the >rule previous. >Since trying to splice in half a word is just nonsensical, valid patents >will have an even number of words. > >To show my dedication to this idea. I'll do it in this rule as well. >------------ Judgement: VALID. The phrasing of "valid patent" is problematic, if it means that a patent with an odd number of words is not a patent and does not receive patent protection under 167:6, then this rule is inconsistent with 167:6. Thus, the "validity" of a patent is undefined at this time (this is not inconsistent with the R.O.'s which only are concerned with the validity of rules) and the handling of odd-worded patents with regard to this rule is left as an exercise for the first one to be confronted with the problem. Anyone who wants to attempt to close this loophole by defining "valid patent" better is free to give it a shot... Style: I would like to remind everyone that the round's theme is Biotechnology, not Patent Law. +0.75 -- Rule Date: 2001-08-21 18:45:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST