Adam BakerUSPTO Post Reply  Add Post
Re: Hindsight Reconstruction and Not Comprehending Doctrine of Inherency
Anonymous 
8/10/2017 8:32:33 PM
 
"He used a prior art reference which is not devised for submergibility in water to read over a submersible because "it could be put in a puddle and therefore part of it (the wheels) would be submerged". !!!!!!" Submersible is not really the same as submerged. Unless you claimed how the machine is submersible, this really could be interpreted to merely have the capability to be submerged.

"The assertion makes no sense since no intermediary structure was set forth anywhere in the spec and reading in phantom structure is unreasonable and outside the scope implied by a person having ordinary skill." Looks like you are trying to take limitations from the specification and have them apply to the claim. However, the claims, while interpreted in light of the specification, is not limited by the specification.

It sounds like you are trying to place a more limited scope than the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. I would recommend you hire an attorney (or a new attorney) to prosecute your applications.

   
NumSubjectPosted ByPosted On 
1808Re: Hindsight Reconstruction and Not Comprehending Doctrine of InherencyAnonymous8/10/2017 8:32:33 PMSelect
1807Re: Hindsight Reconstruction and Not Comprehending Doctrine of InherencyAnonymous8/9/2017 6:15:06 PMSelect
1806Hindsight Reconstruction and Not Comprehending Doctrine of Inherencyorionsg88/9/2017 1:02:19 PMSelect
 
Apple Store