http://www.patentlit.com/2008/12/28/robert-cohn-was-once-middleweight-boxing-champion-of-princeton/ Tracking Patent Appeals Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:17:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.patentlit.com/2008/12/28/robert-cohn-was-once-middleweight-boxing-champion-of-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Avid Reader Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:39:01 +0000 http://www.patentlit.com/2008/12/28/robert-cohn-was-once-middleweight-boxing-champion-of-princeton/#comment-5 Well, reading the opinion, it seems like in this case the Griffins never contested that any of the other claim limitations were in the prior art. They only contested that the preamble was not found in the prior art. See this excerpt: "6. Jeffrey and Claudia Griffin's ('the Griffins') only apparent basis for arguing that their patent claims are not anticipated by the prior art is that the preamble language is an additional claim limitation" It seems to me that if somebody says that your claim with limitations (a), (b), and (c) is invalid because all of those limitations are disclosed inthe prior art, and you say, "But limitation (d) is not disclosed in the prior art!" you've kind of admitted that limitations (a), (b), and (c) are disclosed by the prior art. Also check out paragraph 4 of the conclusions of law: "4. Since the preamble language is not limiting, and since the Griffins only basis for arguing against anticipation is that the preamble language is an additional limitation, the Griffins have essentially FOREGONE any attempt to disprove the Marrins' and Etch-It, Inc.'s contentions that the patent is invalid due to anticipation." Well, reading the opinion, it seems like in this case the Griffins never contested that any of the other claim limitations were in the prior art. They only contested that the preamble was not found in the prior art. See this excerpt:
“6. Jeffrey and Claudia Griffin’s (‘the Griffins’) only apparent basis for
arguing that their patent claims are not anticipated by the prior art is
that the preamble language is an additional claim limitation”
It seems to me that if somebody says that your claim with limitations (a), (b), and (c) is invalid because all of those limitations are disclosed inthe prior art, and you say, “But limitation (d) is not disclosed in the prior art!” you’ve kind of admitted that limitations (a), (b), and (c) are disclosed by the prior art. Also check out paragraph 4 of the conclusions of law:
“4. Since the preamble language is not limiting, and since the Griffins
only basis for arguing against anticipation is that the preamble
language is an additional limitation, the Griffins have essentially
FOREGONE any attempt to disprove the Marrins’ and Etch-It, Inc.’s
contentions that the patent is invalid due to anticipation.”

]]>