InvestorsHub Logo

LTE

Followers 7
Posts 1413
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/28/2009

LTE

Re: Magmar post# 2644

Tuesday, 11/21/2017 3:29:59 PM

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:29:59 PM

Post# of 6673
Magmar, I find it interesting that the patent application
that you cited (US 13/799,432) claims 1 & 3 were cancelled
and claims 2 & 4 were rejected.

And since that patent application only has four claims, it
looks like it's not going to be granted at all unless there's
some serious amendments to claims 2 & 4. However, one of
those claims' weaknesses is that they're not supported by
the written description. That's a violation of fundamental
patent law - the claims must be supported by the written
description.


Check the PTO's PAIR to see what I mean - search under application
# 13/799,432 and follow the communications with the examiner
under "image file wrapper":

https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

I also found it interesting that the last communication between
the patent office and ALLM's attorney was "returned to sender."

It was sent back to the PTO because it was undeliverable!

What is this amateur hour?