|
From: | Robert T. Short |
Subject: | Re: overloaded function handles |
Date: | Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:13:30 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090606 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 |
Well, I understand what you are trying to say. In fact I thought it
was quite clear. And I agree that now that we have had this discussion
it really is important (at least in the U.S.) to be careful that we
have not infringed the patent. Judd, the problem with your argument is that the CLAIMS don't include the quotes you have below. The invention is defined by the claims, not the patent body. The patent body provides scope and a dictionary, but does not define the invention. If the claims refer to an technique or term that is not clearly defined by standard practice or is intended to be used differently from standard practice, the body is used to interpret the claim. So, breaking claim 1 down: 1. A method comprising: at a first point in a program in a computer programming language having dynamic types and overloaded functions, octave is a computer language having dynamic types and overloaded functions constructing, using a function name, a function data structure; do we derive a data structure from a function name? the function data structure comprising information leading to a set of functions visible at the first point; Is the data structure comprised of information leading to a set of functions visible at the first point? at a second point, applying the function data structure to an argument list, the applying comprising selecting a function using the function data structure and calling the selected function. At the second point in the program, do we apply the function data structure to an argument list, that is do we call the selected function using an argument list? The wording of this last claim element is awkward and may leave a hole. Furthermore, it seems that any object-oriented language would infringe this claim. If our implementation satisfies all of these conditions, we infringe claim 1. We need to do the same for all claims. If we infringe any claim, we infringe the patent (but if we don't satisfy ALL the conditions in a claim, we don't infringe the claim). I haven't looked at the implementation, so can't fill this in, but I have done this for a number of patents over the years and will when I have time. As for prior art, it, too, must satisfy all of the conditions of every infringed claim to be considered prior art. Disclaimer: I am not a member of any U.S. patent bar and so this discussion does not comprise legal advice. Bob Judd Storrs wrote:
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |