tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post8095446678306885904..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: Bill C-86 and the Use of Prosecution History in Claim ConstructionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-20885622894198170222018-11-13T23:00:50.405-04:002018-11-13T23:00:50.405-04:00Excellent post, Norman.
From the examination si...Excellent post, Norman. <br /><br />From the examination side of things, it may be worth pointing out that CIPO applies very different criteria to the assessment of essential elements than the courts do (you have written about this, of course). Applicants routinely contend with examiner assertions that claim elements are "non-essential" during examination, according to CIPO's prescribed approach. One is sometimes forced to argue "essentiality" under that framework during examination merely to have an examiner read and give full consideration to all claim features.<br /><br />It is difficult to envisage how file wrapper estoppel will work with CIPO's approach being so divergent from the claims construction of the courts. What is a "representation" when the courts are interested in backgammon and CIPO has insisted on flipping over the board to play checkers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com