• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'John Evdemon'" <jevdemon@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:19:18 -0800

There use to be a requirement that patent seekers had first to construct a
working model of their invention.

I realize that frivolous software is easy to construct, but that's not the
point. The point of constructing such a model is that it would allow the
patent examiner to see just what's being patented, rather than interpret
words on a page. This may make more obvious "inventions" obviously
unpatentable.

• Prev by Date: many-to-many
• Next by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by thread: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread