Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[Zeev Hed]

Read my reply to the your first post, in Clintonian "It is the claims and only the claims, <whatever irrisory term they had here>"). When you read a patent, the specification will be broad and the first set of claims would be even broader, the examiner, based on prior art and on the specification, in his first response would probably reject all the claim, and or, demand that method claims be separated into another application. When you see a patent with three "instrument" (actually 4, since 36 is also independent) independent claims and only one Method claim, you already know the examiner had "its way" with the claims and probably forced out at least two independent method claims (equivalent to the respective instrument claims). When you see a specification which is broad and claims that are narrower, you see the signs of the examiner's trampling on the work of love of the inventor (g). I know, I have been there about 25 times out of 45 patents and am waiting patiently for the all mighty examiner's verdict on few others....