>...and detailed enough that an expert in the domain can reproduce the invention from the description. I can assure you that in practice they are neither.
I provided a counter-example. I'm going to take the the fact you're not responding to the counter-example but rather changing the argument as acceptable that you were wrong.
> >...and detailed enough that an expert in the domain can reproduce the invention from the description. I can assure you that in practice they are neither.
> I provided a counter-example. I'm going to take the the fact you're not responding to the counter-example but rather changing the argument as acceptable that you were wrong.
You ignored the fact that the "innovation" is really embodied in the claims not the rest, because that is what will be covered in the end.
Apart from the fact that even this somewhat better written example makes claims much broader than what was actually done, giving one example does not invalidate the fact that many (and I argue most by a large margin) patents are much more vague.
If you eventually sue someone, the claims are used, but they will often be challenged if they go beyond the scope of the spec.
Yeah fantastic, like an entire page devoted to showing requests that have numerical identifiers. Groundbreaking stuff.
And it's all completely irrelevant noise because you can infringe on the patent even if your implementation in no way depends on any of those details
The only thing that matters is the claims, and they're written so broadly and interpreted by the courts so creatively that a subject matter expert cannot read the document and determine if something does or does not infringe on it.
Seriously, how does Claim 1 not cover 99% of HTTP requests ever made given that people were using reverse proxies and passing requests between backend servers for decades before this patent was filed?