[OSM-talk] It's all over! (patent fun)

[David Earl]

On 06/11/2007 17:12, Abigail Brady wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2007 3:06 PM, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com 
> <mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com>> wrote:
> 
>     But on the other, the claims only cover reducing the amount of data by
>     maximum chord distance from the track. The patent claims, which are what
>     matter, aren't about collecting data but about reducing its complexity.
>     But it doesn't say "automated" anywhere, so if you trace a track in JOSM
>     omitting intermediate points where they are in a sufficiently straight
>     line, maybe there's a potential infringement.
> 
> 
> It does limit it so in the abstract -
> 
> "The data acquired while traveling are processed by a program that 
> automatically selects which of the data are necessary to provide a 
> specified level of accuracy"
>  
> Does that not accurately represent the actual claims?

None of the patent matters, except in as much as it gives background, 
except the claims. If you are writing a patent, you usually describe 
your invention, but then go as far as you think you can push it in 
generalising the claims from that. Often the claims will be more limited 
than the body text describes because, during the examination process 
(which are often protracted negotiations) the examiner will disallow or 
limit the scope of some of the claims.

Claim rejections are usually based on prior art, sometimes obviousness 
or utility (you can only claim a patent on something which is useful, 
original and not obvious, though the test for not obvious is "not 
obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art", which means another 
expert might come up with it if pushed, but not your typical citizen 
working in the same field).

David