proj-imim:
Re: Site closed, and changes
Richard Moore 2001-Jun-05 04:14:30
Joost Nieuwenhuijse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's not allowed to use a 'substantial part' of a patent either, to prevent
> people from splitting an invention into two parts and distribute them
> separately. This can still be seen as infringement.
>
> I guess it's up to judge to decide what 'substantial' means, though.
>
> Joost
The fact that IPIX patented an end-to-end system, rather than patenting the
components separately, suggests to me that somebody at some
point determined that the components were either obvious to
someone skilled in the art (Helmut would qualify as such a
person), or were covered by some prior art. Surely two
patents would have been better than one, so why didn't IPIX
attempt to get two? Or perhaps they did and that was
rejected? It would be interesting to see what the original
IPIX application claimed.
The message seems to be that it is the combination of
front-end production and back-end viewing software that is
claimed as novel and non-obvious.
Richard