tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post2703070527562704348..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: “Promise of the Patent” Is Unfamiliar to ExpertsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-60381638774861941272012-03-21T07:53:48.150-03:002012-03-21T07:53:48.150-03:00Good point, and I admit that this isn't the st...Good point, and I admit that this isn't the strongest criticism of the false promise doctrine. However, I think there is a difference; while the phrase "purposive claim construction" wouldn't be understood by a skilled person, the concept intuitively would be, as ultimately the message of Catnic is that a patent should be understood as a skilled person would read it, and not as a lawyer would read it. The term “purposive claim construction” is in principle a legal label lawyers for the way a skilled person would naturally read the patent, and not something they would need instruction about. With that said, your basic point remains: simply because a skilled person would need to be instructed with respect to a particular doctrine, does not mean that the doctrine is necessarily flawed.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-75958254117743653832012-03-20T21:45:42.270-03:002012-03-20T21:45:42.270-03:00"If a patent specification is supposed to be ..."If a patent specification is supposed to be addressed to persons skilled in the art, and such persons have no idea what the “promise of the patent” means, then maybe this is a problem with the doctrine, and not with the experts."<br /><br />It is unlikely that the person of skill in the art would know the meaning of "Purposive claim Construction" either. This does not mean that we should get rid of claim construction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com