Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20100299227
Collaborate on the process of community review for this application. Posting will not be forwarded to the USPTO.
Flagging a post as an ACTION ITEM signals further research. Flagging SPAM and ABUSE helps to manage discussion.
Placing double brackets around a reference to a claim or prior art will create a hyperlink to the original
ex. [[claim 1]] and [[prior art 2]].
Facilitator's Comment 
Action Item Show without Noise
1
Manny Schecter (over 2 years ago)
This application should be objected to or rejected in view of its confusing description. The abstract indicates types of claims are included which are not present in the application. Christian Ehret (over 2 years ago)
Can you be more specific? Patents can be invalid for lack of enablement, but I am not sure if that is the case and, even if it is, I am unaware of any third party mechanisms to challenge on those grounds. I could be wrong, though.Manny Schecter (over 2 years ago)
This is really best left to the patent examiner to decide. I would think that confusion over the types of claims included would not impact whether the teaching is enabling. This problem does not impact the claims themselves. It is also a correctable problem - the patent examiner should point it out to the applicant and the applicant should make an amendment to clear up the inconsistencies. 0 days left
