About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Guest Post: Ariosa v Sequenom -- A Path to the Supreme Court? »

December 13, 2015

Comments

I would point out that "configured to" is NOT the proper way of looking at this, but rather, "configured to accommodate."

The latter having the extra verb is the one that sets apart whether or not a camera must be included, while the former risks the conflation of a whole set of rhetoric (the difference between future possibility, aka, able to be configured, versus an actual changed conditioned).

There are FAR too many "folks" out there only too eager to conflate and kick up dust for such a loose post to go un-noted.

In particular, a certain amorphous poster only too eagerly refuses to note that computers sans programming (i.e. "[Old Box]") simply does NOT cover every FUTURE invention as typified by software components.

The [Old Box] simply does NOT have every such future innovation "already in there."

Apologies for the "nit," but this is an area too prone to unhelpful confusion NOT to add this note of clarity.

Referring to the camera discussion.

I'm not a US practitioner, but I assume the broad interpretation of the claim by the ITC is a two way street and that prior art not directed to camera mounting systems are considered prior art.

Let me know if not!

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31