Re: Collateral estoppel applied to claim limitation despite intervening reexaminatio
posted on
Dec 19, 2014 01:53PM
Dischion...when the public reads the initial head line they are not going to understand...as the unrelated consideration...... only has meaning to the folks on this board.
That is how readership is going to relate in reading the balance of the article.
There is nothing in the article that really translates 774 to 108….other than that word.
What the public sees, is that the patent 774 is dead...though it is not.
I'm not going to mention the word that seems to offend you.... however, that is what the author is praying on.
You have to read issues the way others are going to interpret and not the why you might. You have to put yourself in their shoes.
doni