InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[gatticaa]

I_Q, thanks again, real good stuff, but here's your answer.

III. Conclusion
As every patent practitioner knows, claim drafting is
something of an art. The drafter must not only capture the
useful, novel, and nonobvious features of an invention as
clearly and broadly as possible, but also must anticipate
how the claims might be construed up to 26 years later.32
As the cases cited above indicate, even the preamble must
be carefully crafted. To avoid giving the claim preamble a
limiting effect, the patent as a whole should reflect a lack
of intent to do so. This can be accomplished by avoiding
the Jepson claim form, by ensuring that the body of the
claim is sufficiently self-contained to be comprehensible
without the preamble, by providing antecedent basis to
the claim limitations from within the body of the claim,
and by avoiding characterizing the preamble terms
within the specification as indispensable elements of
the invention.

These guys get ahold of science, black and white stuff, and somehow are HAPPY to assign it to a gray, muddled place. Words mean things, and those words SHOULD describe what the patent does and does not do. Short of that, their intentions should be to discover the whole truth, regardless of whether or not the words used to describe the truth could have multi meanings. There is still a thing there to look at, albeit a real complicated sort of invisible technical thing, let's look at the real thing and what it does and does not do, i say.

To me it's a akin to saying a not guilty verdict means the guy didn't do it. Whether the guy did it or not is a hard cold fact and the legal system has zero bearing on that. The priority should be the truth of whether he did or did not do it, not how the law chooses to handle it.

I guess i'm just a laymen spouting off about law and science, two things i know little about, but since art is my profession i think i can say neither one of those two professions should borrow mine.