🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12APR91.19282474@uc780.umd.edu> cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu writes:
> This brings up a rather interesting concept:  How is it possible to
> have a patent which covers all algorithms which compute the same
> result?

It isn't. ``Where no product patent was involved, plaintiff in patent
infringement suit could not, by claiming a product or method in terms of
result, function or broad class, foreclose all means and ways of
practically obtaining such result.'' Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Sid
Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co., D.C.Tex. 1968, 293 F.Supp. 555,
affirmed 416 F.2d 10.

Also: ``Fact that claims of patent were broad enough to cover certain
process did not establish infringement of patent by process, since
claims are to be read in connection with specifications, and patentee's
broadest claim can be no broader than his actual invention.'' Kemart
Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, C.A.Cal. 1953, 201 F.2d
624.

---Dan