🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar6.203352.28824@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <901@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:
> >In article <7308:Mar605:56:5291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >}Just because the patent has to do with a terminal does not mean that it
> >}cannot apply to X. A patent always applies to equivalents of the
> >}invention.
> >NONSENSE! A patent applies to EXACTLY what appears in the claims - no
> >more, no less.
> Either way, I don't think this rules out the backing store patent being
> applicable to X.  A computer running an X server is effectively a terminal.

Right. This is why the courts set up the doctrine of equivalents
(originally deriving from various decisions on ``colorable changes'').
You can't escape a patent by making inconsequential changes that don't
really affect the invention. Physical terminal, virtual terminal, big
deal.

On the other hand, claims are always read in light of specifications,
and someone can never patent more than he has invented. A patent cannot
cover *all* ways of accomplishing a given result, unless of course all
those ways are obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art. (Sorry,
don't have a precise reference at hand.)

Given that most of the claims in the patent in question seem to be
covered by prior art, this is largely irrelevant.

---Dan