Just to indicate that the USPTO does not have a monopoly on bad biblio, I
offer CA2034960-C, dated 1/15/02. It allegedly claims as priority GB
90-300806. That priority application should be EP.....the number is
correct, but the filing was EPO in GB, rather than in the GB national
system.
Meanwhile, has anyone ever seen a patent granted by the USPTO to a process
for making a substance, where the examples deal only with the use of that
substance rather than making it, and the specification states that the
substances "used in the present invention are produced using methods known
to those skilled in the art. Typically, the procedures simply comprise the
addition of the..."
That is, the specification says that everyone knows how to make these
particular substances (catalysts), but despite that statement the USPTO has
found the process of making the substance to be novel and unexpected.
Huh??????? [Ref.: US6344577, issued 2/5/02] Who said there ain't nuthin'
new under the sun?
Stu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:56:40 GMT