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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Microvision (MVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jan Johnsen who wrote (2207)	3/31/1999 11:22:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 7720

Jan, that is exactly what concern me, the fact of the matter is that if this patent is challenged, it will fail because the principal clause is so broad that it specifically covers inoperative embodiments. Big patent houses often write very broad claims under the assumption (false in my opinion) that "they may leave something on the table". In my opinion they do that so that they can click their billable time clock when they go into the responses to the examiner's objections to specific claims. The IP group's responsibility is to make sure that the claims are as broad as possible, without getting into inoperative embodiments or stepping on prior art, in this case the main claim is clearly and IMHO unequivocally inoperative and the patent could be rendered invalid if contested. This indicates o me very sloppy IP work and for a company whose whole future depends on it's unique intellectual property (after all they do not have GE's type of financial muscles), makes me quite concerned. It indicates to me that management has a major weakness in this area of their business. Zeev