Lecture 04 - Patent Document 2

[@blackheart6288]

12:40 what's the point here of writing we as [W]e? Does this has any rule associated with it?

[@adityamittal4357]

I disagree with the 'comma' argument because back in the day and still in British English, a comma is typically used before 'and'. Americans found that extra comma often confusing and unnecessary and decided to drop it as a norm from American English. So, the comma after the written description to me seems more like a remnant of the way grammar was done in the past rather than a true separation of written description from enabled requirement. Even today an American would write "cat, bat and mouse" while a Britisher would write "cat, bat, and mouse". In this text, you can see there is a comma even after concise before the and. Does that mean 'full, clear, concise' are separate from the 'exact terms'? No. In the past, they would've used a semicolon if they were truly trying to declare these as separate requirements. To me this text is mostly just saying there should be a written description in the application, not so much that the entire enablement has to be written and can't be drawn etc.

[@ELKF91]

I agree. I feel like the strongest argument in my opinion for having a "separate written description" is that people would start trying to do the enablement requirement only through the formal drawings with labels? Or maybe some people in the past tried doing so. Other than that, I really don't see how the written description and enablement requirements are separate whatsoever.

[@brawndo8726]

Good content but the fonts choices are tragic.

[@Zakariah1971]

Why Penn is the best Ivy League for law school