Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Xenolix Technologies (XTCI) 'Ecstasy'(Formerly MGAU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (4893)	12/22/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

Richard, Quite often process patents, while teaching in broad terms, remain sufficiently general as to not divulge the specifics of the process. Often they will list a range of conditions over which the process is claimed but the specific conditions where the process operates most efficiently won't be revealed. A reader of the patent might still be required to do considerable testing to determine how the process actually works and the most appropriate operating conditions. The papent provides protection and in return must do a limited amount of "teaching", but a company will often times still safeguard the specific operational parameters it is using. Having said that, it will still be interesting to read the patent when it actually publishes. Alan

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (4893)	12/23/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 5143

I personally own one patent and have two additional pending. I agree with Alan that methodology and process patents can be pretty vague and still get protection. For example ... it may say it uses X solution between a 30 and 70% dilution and put through a heater for Y amount of time at Z temperature. (Y & Z being ranges.) The art of writing a patent is to retain control while providing as little information to a copycat as possible. I have found patents to be great PR tools as they add tremendously to your credibility. Further, and before it comes up ... there is NO SUCH THING as an "invalid" patent when it's issued. All patents are valid and it's up to challengers to prove otherwise through the existence of "prior art" or other examples that show the process was "obvious" to a skilled practitioner of the art. As many people who have worked on the mystery of complex mineralization ... I'd have to say Dr. Johnson's solution meets the criteria of being non-obvious, novel and unique ... otherwise the USPTO would not have issued the patent. Congratulations Dr. Johnson ... may your 20 years of hard work and frustration finally be rewarded!