In Reply to: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim posted by Wayne Parham on July 2, 2002 at 15:41:48:
============
As I had mentioned, patent writers make a list of claims and if one is found to be unique by the examiners then the patent is granted. I had hoped that you might share with us which claim that was.
============Now IANAL, but I have been through the process a few times, and my understanding is that ALL claims of a granted patent are in force. Per 35 USC 112, all granted claims - that is, all claims that are in the granted patent - are in force. Violation of the patent requires violation of one or more of the claims of the patent. You are not restricted to one claim; the patent examiner is to disqualify all claims that are not novel and nonobvious.
Thus, in Mr. Danley's patent, all claims are in effect, and must be considered. Note that in the case of dependent claims you must also infringe on the base claim as well; simply using a technique mentioned in a dependent claim but not using techniques present in the base claim does not infringe.
At least that's my understanding after talking quite a bit with patent lawyers (and ex patent examiners).
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 07/3/0208:24:59 07/3/02 (16)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:41:39 07/3/02 (15)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 17:39:04 07/3/02 (14)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 22:24:00 07/3/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - DanWiggins 08:09:31 07/4/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 09:57:06 07/4/02 (11)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 13:03:15 07/4/02 (10)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 22:53:34 07/4/02 (7)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:34:40 07/5/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 12:08:51 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:59:24 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 08:54:53 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:23:20 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:47:11 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:09:41 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Andre Jute 13:59:04 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:41:47 07/4/02 (0)