[Patents] Re: http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/indexen.html

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> "Each claim stands on its own. Anything that falls within the scope of one 
> claim may not be done without permission."
> 
> This is not correct. Only the independent claims stand on their own. 

I think both your and my statement are correct.
We are referring to two different things when we say "stand on its own".
I refer to the fact that each claim individually defines one range of
objects which infringe.
You refer to the fact that each claim relies on meanings that have been
established somewhere else.  This btw is also true of independent claims.

> "The description is of secondary importance. It helps to explain the 
> meaning of the claims when doubt arises. It is supposed to provide 
> sufficient instructions to the "person skilled in the art" so that she can 
> reimplement the "invention"."
> 
> If the claims are not supported by the description, the claim is not valid. 

Again both your and my statement are true.
We just mean differnt things by the word "secondary".
I mean to say "the description comes into play only as a support means 
for interpreting the claims".  You mean to say "the description is equally
important because the claims depend on it".  You could even say "it is of
primary importance because no claims have any meaning if there is not a
description to support them."  In fact EPO descriptions come first in
sequence while JPO descriptions come second.
 
> Hence, the description is not only of "secondary" importance. If it is 
> found lacking the whole patent may be invalidated.

I didn't mean "of secondary importance".
 
> "Patent descriptions and claims use a lot of redundant language about 
> "allocation of memory space for a variable" etc. This is a clothing which 
> is needed to make the patents look "technical" and complex, so as to  
> impress the examiner."
> 
> Not really. It is not a matter of fooling the examiner.

You are right, it is not quite that simple.
How claims are written does affect the scope of protection, and the goal
is usually to have a good position in case of ligitation rather than just
to get the patent by impressing the examiner. 

> "Most "inventions" will take many manyears to implement and require a lot 
> of programming skill and ingenuity which is not disclosed in the 
> description. The ideas described therein are usually a matter of one 
> session in the bathtub -- the main effort for the patentee consists in 
> writing a patent description. He needn't even have implemented the ideas 
> himself."
> 
> This is not necessarily wrong, but it is not necessarily particular to 
> software. 

Right.  
Many hardware patents, especially mechanical ones, are really just
hardware representations of purely mental ideas which need not be verified
in reality.  We therefore propose a definition of "invention" which
requires that new knowledge about causality of natural forces must lie
at the heart.  That way you'd get many patents in chemistry (as long as
computational chemistry is not more advanced) and pharmaceutics,
few in mechanics and electronics and none in software.

> I have been looking around your web site trying to figure out what your 
> fundamental position really is and on what it is based, but I must confess 
> to a certain amount of confusion.

See what I said above and

        http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52/
 
> But in any case, it is interesting to follow your work, and I
> certainly do agree that a lot of trivial patents are granted in the
> software field (and probably in other fields of technology as well).

Thanks for your hints. Btw, this discussion list is mainly in German. If
we want to continue the discussion in English, I suggest moving it to
patents@aful.org.

-phm