[Patent Pod] Datamize v. Plumtree Software
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew Lahser
Aug 22, 2005, 1:52:45 AM8/22/05
to mypat...@googlegroups.com
[http://www.patentpod.com/sound/2005/august/Datamize-v-Plumtree-Software.mp3]
The patentee claimed an 'aesthetically pleasing' computer screen, and did not define the term in the specification. The court held that the term 'aesthetically pleasing' was indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112. See also,
--
Posted by Andrew Lahser to Patent Pod at 8/21/2005 10:34:00 PM
The patentee claimed an 'aesthetically pleasing' computer screen, and did not define the term in the specification. The court held that the term 'aesthetically pleasing' was indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112. See also,
- MP3: Datamize v. Plumtree Software (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)
- PDF: Datamize v. Plumtree Software (Fed. Cir. 2005) (full text)
- Patently-O: Aesthetically Pleasing Patent Found Indefinite
- IP-Updates: 'Aesthetically Pleasing' Screen Element Claim Invalid
--
Posted by Andrew Lahser to Patent Pod at 8/21/2005 10:34:00 PM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages