Friday, October 27, 2006

More on the faulty coverage in Science of continuation applications

Further to the article in 88 JPTOS 743 criticizing the accuracy of July 28 "news of the week" piece in Science, one reader wrote:

I read footnote 11 about the submitted "letter to the editor". The inability to address matters in Science is very sad.

No other blog is covering this story, which has a lot to do with the accuracy of certain allegations of misuse of the continuation process in patent applications.

Eli Kintisch wrote an earlier article "What good is a patent?", which appears in 311 Science 946 (17 Feb. 06), which discusses the eBay and Metabolite cases.

At page 947: "Yet patent attorneys are also mindful of a 2002 decision involving cylinder manufacturers in which the high court expounded the rights of patent holders by reversing the Federal Circuit on an issue related to similar inventions."

The 2002 decision is Festo.


Post a Comment

<< Home