Aaron Toney wrote: > > No. Actually if you are filing for a process patent each of the > components of the system can exsist it is just the method in which they > are used that needs to be novel. Also if people are using this novel > process but it is deamed not to be within widely within the public domain, > such as the laptop in backpack using DragonDictate (tm) then it is a > still pattentable and solidly so. Ok, there are 2 parts to this 1) is the combination really novel? -and- 2) does mere lack of widespread prior art use make a non-novel patent valid? Now (1) is certainly arguable, and perhaps there is some fine point of patent law that makes a 'novel combination' of existing parts sufficiently different enough to be patentable - but I'd argue that the patent as described is still overly broad - it might be construed as applying to a clip-on voice-activated recorder. Now (2) is wholly wrong - patents are for innovation, and if prior art exists, it ain't innovative. > > Basicly betweene these two patents pretty much everyone who puts > out a wearables patent in the next several years is probiably going to be > sighting these patents as prior art. IMSNHO, Xybernaut has shot themselves in the foot - they have made potential enemies of a vast majority of the wearable community with these patents. -- Pete Hardie | Goalie, DVSG Dart Team Scientific Atlanta | Digital Video Services Group | -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail