A Patent Application or a Soapbox?

Wow... wow.... all I can say is ... wow.

U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0161257 has this little nugget in it as claim number 9.

I applaud whoever drafted the application for their sense of spunk, but you really have to wonder.... what were they thinking?

Personally, if there was an oath/declaration signed by the inventor (also -- PDF version) and filed in the application stating that the inventor had read and understood the application to accurately reflect their invention - I would be worried that claim 9 could cause some problems down the line.

Once again... wow... all I can say is ... wow.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Comments

Comments

Hmmm... claim 9 seems to be an acceptable method claim to me. Perhaps the defective declaration problem can be cured by adding the patent attorney as an inventor, and having him file a declaration that he was omitted without deceptive intent? The original inventor could argue that his declaration was valid as to the claims he invented. Of course, the method of including a bogus claim might not be enabled by the specification...

It was filed with formal docs, so there is going to be an awfully good argument that the Oath was false. Ouch!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.