On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:02:17AM +0000, Ralph Janke wrote:
That would be found true today, I suppose. However, the judge decided in
the year when
Bromcom "invented" and patented it, it was a knowledge only a radio
technology expert would have had,
but not somebody employed by a school running a computer network and
deploying a registration system.
Is that really what the judge said? This is a really pernicious legal doctrine.
It implies that you can get around even the non-obviousness requirement
by... selling to customers totally unskilled in the relevant art(s)? Bizarre!
Therefore, I would despute the novelty or non-obvious assessment of the
judge. However because of legal reasons, I
believe nothing can be done in that way.
I would hope that, if nothing else, an appeal can be raised based on the
claim that the legal doctrine the judge is employing to decide something
"non-obvious" or "novel", does not make sense.