| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Don and Claire, I propose that the PatCom consider a minor revision to the
definition of Essential Patent Claims. The current proposed definition
uses an unnecessarily vague and broad phrase, “… the use of which
may be essential to create a compliant implementation…” It
seems to me that the phrase “may be essential” is not sufficiently
narrow, and has potential to lead to confusion and/or mischief. This problem
can be solved if we replace “may be” with “is” as follows:
For this purpose, an Essential Patent Claim shall include any patent
claim (including new claims based on a reissue or a re-exam) and/or patent
application claim (including continuations or divisionals [TBD (not continuations in part)]), the use of which is essential to create a compliant implementation
of either mandatory or optional portions of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard. This should help prevent confusion about what claims are required
to be licensed. Thanks. Regards, Mike Sirtori |