Michael:
You have lost me there. It appears that we are on separate tracks. I was using that MOT patent as an example of how the courts narrowly interpret inventions. At the time of conception of the MOT invention (around 1992), were integrated Phone/Pagers known within the art? That is a big question. For purposes, to support my argument, let's assume no. (We can argue about assuming yes later, but then my example "wouldn't hold water.")
Since I shall assume that integrated phone/pager isn't known at the time of invention, if MOT invents a specific method of vibrating, disclosed in a paging environment, do they deserve coverage for integrated cell phones/pagers? Since, at the time of invention, phone/pagers weren't well known, the court ruled that MOT couldn't receive broader coverage, meaning this patent could not cover integrated phone/pagers.
I haven't looked very closely at the Q's patents, however I promise to read them this weekend. For assumption, let's assume the Q does not specify bandwidth in the specification. (We all know that in the claims, the patents aren't BW specific). However, the concepts of their patents was in 1991-1993. Were high bandwidth applications in a mobile environment known?
Actually, after re-reading re-reading your arguments, it appears that we might be arguing separate things, similiar to "two ships passing in the nite."
I will give you a call when I pass the bar, however, you are going to have to wait awhile.
dave |
