Prosecutors are repeatedly being told by the Federal Circuit, and we are gradually learning, that the less said on the Background the better.\u00a0 Whether it is by admitted prior art, criticisms of the prior art that work a disclaimer, or objects of the invention that limit the scope of the claims, backgrounds can do more harm than good.\u00a0 Usually the less said the better.<\/p>\n
The Background of U.S. Patent No. 8,007,204 is one that might be improved by brevity, although its problem — irony — is not as fatal as\u00a0those listed above. \u00a0The ‘204 Patent is directed to a Floating Structure for Support of Mixed Use Facilities. \u00a0One of the problems of the prior art identified in the background are the restrictions of intellectual property laws:<\/p>\n
The solution is a floating structure in the middle of the ocean, protected, of course, by patent issued by a land-based society.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Prosecutors are repeatedly being told by the Federal Circuit, and we are gradually learning, that the less said on the Background the better.\u00a0 Whether it is by admitted prior art, criticisms of the prior art that work a disclaimer, or … Continue reading ![\"8007204\"](\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/8007204.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n