In my admittedly somewhat limited experience reviewing software patents, I have come to the conclusion that in many cases the description of the “invention” is deliberately made to be overly broad in an attempt to cover anything remotely related to the patent. In addition, there is significant amount of prior art that has been ignored. It is hard to believe that the patent examiners could be that ignorant to not know that what is being claimed in the patent is neither new nor non obvious. It appears that the whole purpose of the patent is to be able to sue someone.
One Comment
In my admittedly somewhat limited experience reviewing software patents, I have come to the conclusion that in many cases the description of the “invention” is deliberately made to be overly broad in an attempt to cover anything remotely related to the patent. In addition, there is significant amount of prior art that has been ignored. It is hard to believe that the patent examiners could be that ignorant to not know that what is being claimed in the patent is neither new nor non obvious. It appears that the whole purpose of the patent is to be able to sue someone.