Insufficiency
180. There was a pleaded argument of insufficiency that was based on what seems to me to be an over reliance on a diagrammatic representation of the invention claimed as shown in Figures 3A and 3B. As I discussed earlier, the two workpieces are shown to be at a distance from each other without any bracing between them. Taken literally, as soon as a clamping force was applied, they would collapse towards each other. But by the end of cross-examination both experts treated Figures 3A and 3B as schematics, not to be taken literally, agreeing that the skilled person would be fully capable of implementing the invention claimed. The insufficiency argument fails.
- Introduction
- The Evidence of Travis McClure
- The Experts
- The Patent
- Claim 1
- The Skilled Person
- Common General Knowledge
- Scope of the Claims
- Integer (1) – removable fastener
- Integer (2) – an elongate body
- Integer (3) – a head at one end
- Integer (8) – a screw head adjacent the first member head
- operated
- aperture in each of two workpieces
- The product alleged to infringe
- An equivalent
- Conclusion on infringement
- Validity
- Conclusion on Validity
- Insufficiency
- Overall Conclusion