tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post1513567015090723734..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 1641/13: three different objects agains the word "separate"DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-18754520841056011492016-05-24T10:25:45.321+02:002016-05-24T10:25:45.321+02:00Yeah, I thought about that too, but since the side...Yeah, I thought about that too, but since the side pieces are on opposite sides, I think that the side pieces being separate is implicit in both the old and the new claim.<br /><br />I am not sure that my last statement includes an asumption. Pieces that are molded together and then separated are different from pieces that are molded together. <br /><br />Whether the separation leaves any marks or not, so whether the pieces are distinguishably different, is another matter, but they are different, no doubt about it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-23300409494533156162016-05-23T19:30:44.888+02:002016-05-23T19:30:44.888+02:00Your last statement already includes an assumption...Your last statement already includes an assumption: pieces that are molded together and then separated are inherently different from separately molded pieces, and HENCE, there is infringement.<br /><br />The case, however, is whether that is really true: may the scope of "separate molded pieces" by consided different from (wider than) the scope of "separately molded pieces".<br /><br />I do agree however, that at least an argument can be made that the old claim also covers "separately molded pieces", that are later attached to each other (hence giving pieces that are not separate anymore in the end product), while according to the new claim, the two pieces are necessarily separate.<br /><br />It resembles your argument in a way, but I am not sure whether it is completely the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-6405314611407490442016-05-23T12:09:02.440+02:002016-05-23T12:09:02.440+02:00I am the first anonymous. You are right in relatio...I am the first anonymous. You are right in relation to the 'category'. I used this term not precisely enough.<br /><br />My second argument still stands: side pieces that were molded together and then separated (eg leaving cutting marks) would form an infringement of the new claim, but not of the old claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-72015170553261030432016-05-23T11:41:46.756+02:002016-05-23T11:41:46.756+02:00What do you mean by "the" broadening of ...What do you mean by "the" broadening of category? A product-by-process claim is still a claim to a product. Just worded differently. And if the product-by-process wording descibes a product having the same properties as a "true" product claim, there is no broadening.<br /><br />The history of making the product is not to be considered. Only what remains after making the product in that way. And that could well be two separate molded pieces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-5465700779746156672016-05-23T11:11:24.306+02:002016-05-23T11:11:24.306+02:00Very strange
'separately molded side pieces&#...Very strange<br /><br />'separately molded side pieces' means that they were molded separately (which is probably difficult to determine in the final product, making the original claim a product by process claim)<br /><br />'separate, molded side pieces' is a true product claim: in the final product the side pieces are separate. From the broadening of category alone follows that this must go against 123(3).<br /><br />And besides, the new claim encompasses side pieces that were molded not-separately, then separated and attached. The old claim did not. Obviously this extends the scope of protection.<br /><br />What a bad decisionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com