On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:38 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By "the art" I clearly do not mean HHO/energy from water/etc. I mean > whatever conventional technologies are combined to realize beneficial use > of the invention. > That's one of the things I don't get about the BlackLight IP strategy. It seems they have chosen to weigh down some of their patents with theoretical notions about what is going on under the hood [1,2]. I've gotten the impression along the way that this is inadvisable in a patent; that what you want to do is to set out how to reproduce an effect without going into a discussion that touches on theory. In addition, BLP is said by some on this list to have made some of their patents intentionally unclear. This would seem to put the patent at a disadvantage before the patent examiner. It seems BLP are either getting poor counsel on their IP strategy, or they've concluded over the years that they are not going to get fair consideration and are now placing their bets on a strategy that involves maintaining trade secrets, together with going through the motions of obtaining IP protection in order to satisfy the demands of some outside stakeholders. It's a little mysterious to me what's going on. Eric [1] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6024935&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP [2] http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/6/374
