תביעות חומדות
English translation: covetous claims
| 15:24 Aug 18, 2013 |
| Hebrew to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / Patents | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Ty Kendall United Kingdom Local time: 19:56 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | covetous claims |
| ||
| 2 | Encompassing claims |
|
Answers
2 hrs confidence: 
covetous claims Explanation: See the two references below. Also: "it says that a claim (or all your claims) are broader than the specification can support" http://www.iliplaw.com/2010/04/ ...this is basically it "בקליפת אגוז" ...they are claims which are too broad for the specification to support, claims which are trying to claim a bit too much. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2013-08-18 17:37:23 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- If you google "covetous claiming" you can find more info. Reference: http://www.fridmanwork.com/lawyers28841.html Reference: http://www.jurisdiction.com/patweb06.htm#d |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
59 mins confidence: 
Encompassing claims Explanation: http://www.hamishpat.com/Courses/99903/903-summery-for-test-... פרשנות פטנט: ישראל ארה"ב תיאור- לפני התביעות ישנו תיאור כללי של מהי ההמצאה, תיאור גרפי או מילולי. בארה"ב כדי לפרש פטנט פונים לתיאור ולשרטוטים, אך אם התיאור מצומצם יותר מהתביעות זה לא יפעל לרעתך. בישראל התיאור לא יכול להרחיב או לצמצם את התביעות היקף ההגנה נקבע עפ"י התביעות. מה שלא תבעת נופל לנחלת הכלל. תביעות חומדות- תביעות רחבות מאוד שאין להן תמיכה בפירוט, מנסות לכלול יותר ממה שיש בתיאור, עשוי לבוא בעוכרה והיא לא תהיה תקפה. הציון נמוך כי לא מצאתי לזה סימוכין של ממש -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 3 hrs (2013-08-18 18:57:19 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- 5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1. This claim encompasses isolated naturally occurring DNA, and so is invalid in view of the Supreme Court decision. 6. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2. This claim likely encompasses isolated fragments of naturally occurring DNA, and so is likely invalid in view of the Supreme Court decision, and its discussion of short strands of cDNA that “may be indistinguishable from natural DNA.” http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2013/06/17/a-look-at-the-my... |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations