In which case the
USPTO's own website says it cannot be a valid patent:
``The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.' [emphasis added]
When will the USTO's own examiners read their own organisation's website and actually apply what is found there?
In which case they should be automatically declaring them invalid as of date of issue by USPTO, any licensing invalid and all monies to be returned, and declaring USPTO in contempt for not following its own rules.
(Returning monies may seem harsh, but it is incentive to have a proper patent applied for and issued in the first place. With the USPTO being declared in contempt, the patent applicant could possibly seek redress from the USPTO - only once the USPTO becomes liable for the mess it creates will it do a better job of issuing correct and valid patents....we can but dream.)
If they can be re-interpreted in a different way, then they cannot be in ``
exact terms'' as required (see above) and ergo must be an invalid patent.
If the examiners can't tell where the boundary is, it cannot be in ``
exact] terms'' and so must be invalid; so why are they
NOT immediately automatically rejecting the patent as invalid at that point?
Perhaps the examiner who approved a patent should be automatically called to any litigation of the patent by the court to provide reason why the patent is valid and to provide reasons why something is in ``
exact terms'' when there is dispute over its interpretation. Any patent examiner who has numerous patents are thrown out [based on a rate or absolute numbers] so be required to retrain and not be allowed to issue patents, along with the USPTO becoming liable for the cost of any future successful defence of litigation of one of their patents (won't happen, but we can dream...)
To be blunt: the patent mess will only be cleared up once the USPTO becomes liable for issued patents that later turnout to be invalid - their bad is costing other, innocent, victims who have no redress against the party, the USPTO, who put them in that situation. If a large software company was to make the kind of mistakes that the USPTO makes that costs others they would soon go out of business...oh hang on, Microsoft is doing very fine thank you, along with creating markets for software to cover gaping holes in its OS (anti-virus anyone?) and if it fixed those problems (why does the same problem with viruses still exist after some 20 odd years? Do they not have the know-how to fix it, or the willingness to fix it?) those markets would dry up and many people would be put out of work...now if the USPTO fixed its problems, there would be less litigation and many patent lawyers would be put out of work...
Is this an American ideal: create work for others to apply sticking plasters by not fixing things at the root of the problem (get the infection out and the cut may actually heal!).
