Re: 167:12, VALID, +2.5

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 08:29:31 PDT


Jeremy D. Selengut wrote:
>
> Judgement:  VALID.  Does this rule "splice in exactly half of any patented
> phrase that appeared in the rule previous"?  The problem is the word
> "exactly".  The phrase in question has 18 words, 10 of which are found in
> this rule.

10?  I thought I'd only used 9.  (I wasn't at all worried about those
I used multiple times.)  Shoot!  I missed "than".  I was definitely
thinking that I was only allowed to use 9 of them; allowing others to
have been present without splicing weakens the above restriction
significantly, but I suppose it is a reasonable interpretation.

I'm still disappointed in myself for missing one.

-Jesse

--
Rule Date: 2001-08-22 15:29:40 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST